ASCO Daily News

Dr. Paul Hanona and Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla discuss how to safely and smartly integrate AI into the clinical workflow and tap its potential to improve patient-centered care, drug development, and access to clinical trials. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Paul Hanona: Hello, I'm Dr. Paul Hanona, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I am a medical oncologist as well as a content creator @DoctorDiscover, and I'm delighted to be joined today by Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla, the chief of hematology and oncology at St. Luke's University Health Network. Dr. Bonilla is also the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, an AI-driven platform that matches patients with clinical trials and novel therapies. Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla will share his unique perspective on the potential of artificial intelligence to advance precision oncology, especially through clinical trials and research, and other key advancements in AI that are transforming the oncology field. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of the episode. Dr. Bonilla, it's great to be speaking with you today. Thanks for being here. Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Oh, thank you so much, Dr. Hanona. Paul, it's always great to have a conversation. Looking forward to a great one today. Dr. Paul Hanona: Absolutely. Let's just jump right into it. Let's talk about the way that we see AI being embedded in our clinical workflow as oncologists. What are some practical ways to use AI? Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: To me, responsible AI integration in oncology is one of those that's focused on one principle to me, which is clinical purpose is first, instead of the algorithm or whatever technology we're going to be using. If we look at the best models in the world, they're really irrelevant unless we really solve a real day-to-day challenge, either when we're talking to patients in the clinic or in the infusion chair or making decision support. Currently, what I'm doing the most is focusing on solutions that are saving us time to be more productive and spend more time with our patients. So, for example, we're using ambient AI for appropriate documentation in real time with our patients. We're leveraging certain tools to assess for potential admission or readmission of patients who have certain conditions as well. And it's all about combining the listening of physicians like ourselves who are end users, those who create those algorithms, data scientists, and patient advocates, and even regulators, before they even write any single line of code. I felt that on my own, you know, entrepreneurial aspects, but I think it's an ethos that we should all follow. And I think that AI shouldn't be just bolted on later. We always have to look at workflows and try to look, for example, at clinical trial matching, which is something I'm very passionate about. We need to make sure that first, it's easier to access for patients, that oncologists like myself can go into the interface and be able to pull the data in real time when you really need it, and you don't get all this fatigue alerts. To me, that's the responsible way of doing so. Those are like the opportunities, right? So, the challenge is how we can make this happen in a meaningful way – we're just not reacting to like a black box suggestion or something that we have no idea why it came up to be. So, in terms of success – and I can tell you probably two stories of things that we know we're seeing successful – we all work closely with radiation oncologists, right? So, there are now these tools, for example, of automated contouring in radiation oncology, and some of these solutions were brought up in different meetings, including the last ASCO meeting. But overall, we know that transformer-based segmentation tools; transformer is just the specific architecture of the machine learning algorithm that has been able to dramatically reduce the time for colleagues to spend allotting targets for radiation oncology. So, comparing the target versus the normal tissue, which sometimes it takes many hours, now we can optimize things over 60%, sometimes even in minutes. So, this is not just responsible, but it's also an efficiency win, it's a precision win, and we're using it to adapt even mid-course in response to tumor shrinkage. Another success that I think is relevant is, for example, on the clinical trial matching side. We've been working on that and, you know, I don't want to preach to the choir here, but having the ability for us to structure data in real time using these tools, being able to extract information on biomarkers, and then show that multi-agentic AI is superior to what we call zero-shot or just throwing it into ChatGPT or any other algorithm, but using the same tools but just fine-tuned to the point that we can be very efficient and actually reliable to the level of almost like a research coordinator, is not just theory. Now, it can change lives because we can get patients enrolled in clinical trials and be activated in different places wherever the patient may be. I know it's like a long answer on that, but, you know, as we talk about responsible AI, that's important. And in terms of what keeps me up at night on this: data drift and biases, right? So, imaging protocols, all these things change, the lab switch between different vendors, or a patient has issues with new emerging data points. And health systems serve vastly different populations. So, if our models are trained in one context and deployed in another, then the output can be really inaccurate. So, the idea is to become a collaborative approach where we can use federated learning and patient-centricity so we can be much more efficient in developing those models that account for all the populations, and any retraining that is used based on data can be diverse enough that it represents all of us and we can be treated in a very good, appropriate way. So, if a clinician doesn't understand why a recommendation is made, as you probably know, you probably don't trust it, and we shouldn't expect them to. So, I think this is the next wave of the future. We need to make sure that we account for all those things. Dr. Paul Hanona: Absolutely. And even the part about the clinical trials, I want to dive a little bit more into in a few questions. I just kind of wanted to make a quick comment. Like you said, some of the prevalent things that I see are the ambient scribes. It seems like that's really taken off in the last year, and it seems like it's improving at a pretty dramatic speed as well. I wonder how quickly that'll get adopted by the majority of physicians or practitioners in general throughout the country. And you also mentioned things with AI tools regarding helping regulators move things quicker, even the radiation oncologist, helping them in their workflow with contouring and what else they might have to do. And again, the clinical trials thing will be quite interesting to get into. The first question I had subsequent to that is just more so when you have large datasets. And this pertains to two things: the paper that you published recently regarding different ways to use AI in the space of oncology referred to drug development, the way that we look at how we design drugs, specifically anticancer drugs, is pretty cumbersome. The steps that you have to take to design something, to make sure that one chemical will fit into the right chemical or the structure of the molecule, that takes a lot of time to tinker with. What are your thoughts on AI tools to help accelerate drug development? Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Yes, that's the Holy Grail and something that I feel we should dedicate as much time and effort as possible because it relies on multimodality. It cannot be solved by just looking at patient histories. It cannot be solved by just looking at the tissue alone. It's combining all these different datasets and being able to understand the microenvironment, the patient condition and prior treatments, and how dynamic changes that we do through interventions and also exposome – the things that happen outside of the patient's own control – can be leveraged to determine like what's the best next step in terms of drugs. So, the ones that we heard the news the most is, for example, the Nobel Prize-winning [for Chemistry awarded to Demis Hassabis and John Jumper for] AlphaFold, an AI system that predicts protein structures right? So, we solved this very interesting concept of protein folding where, in the past, it would take the history of the known universe, basically – what's called the Levinthal's paradox – to be able to just predict on amino acid structure alone or the sequence alone, the way that three-dimensionally the proteins will fold. So, with that problem being solved and the Nobel Prize being won, the next step is, “Okay, now we know how this protein is there and just by sequence, how can we really understand any new drug that can be used as a candidate and leverage all the data that has been done for many years of testing against a specific protein or a specific gene or knockouts and what not?” So, this is the future of oncology and where we're probably seeing a lot of investments on that. The key challenge here is mostly working on the side of not just looking at pathology, but leveraging this digital pathology with whole slide imaging and identifying the microenvironment of that specific tissue. There's a number of efforts currently being done. One isn't just H&E, like hematoxylin and eosin, slides alone, but with whole imaging, now we can use expression profiles, spatial transcriptomics, and gene whole exome sequencing in the same space and use this transformer technology in a multimodality approach that we know already the slide or the pathology, but can we use that to understand, like, if I knock out this gene, how is the microenvironment going to change to see if an immunotherapy may work better, right? If we can make a microenvironment more reactive towards a cytotoxic T cell profile, for example. So, that is the way where we're really seeing the field moving forward, using multimodality for drug discovery. So, the FDA now seems to be very eager to support those initiatives, so that's of course welcome. And now the key thing is the investment to do this in a meaningful way so we can see those candidates that we're seeing from different companies now being leveraged for rare disease, for things that are going to be almost impossible to collect enough data, and make it efficient by using these algorithms that sometimes, just with multiple masking – basically, what they do is they mask all the features and force the algorithm to find solutions based on the specific inputs or prompts we're doing. So, I'm very excited about that, and I think we're going to be seeing that in the future. Dr. Paul Hanona: So, essentially, in a nutshell, we're saying we have the cancer, which is maybe a dandelion in a field of grass, and we want to see the grass that's surrounding the dandelion, which is the pathology slides. The problem is, to the human eye, it's almost impossible to look at every single piece of grass that's surrounding the dandelion. And so, with tools like AI, we can greatly accelerate our study of the microenvironment or the grass that's surrounding the dandelion and better tailor therapy, come up with therapy. Otherwise, like you said, to truly generate a drug, this would take years and years. We just don't have the throughput to get to answers like that unless we have something like AI to help us. Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Correct. Dr. Paul Hanona: And then, clinical trials. Now, this is an interesting conversation because if you ever look up our national guidelines as oncologists, there's always a mention of, if treatment fails, consider clinical trials. Or in the really aggressive cancers, sometimes you might just start out with clinical trials. You don't even give the standard first-line therapy because of how ineffective it is. There are a few issues with clinical trials that people might not be aware of, but the fact that the majority of patients who should be on clinical trials are never given the chance to be on clinical trials, whether that's because of proximity, right, they might live somewhere that's far from the institution, or for whatever reason, they don't qualify for the clinical trial, they don't meet the strict inclusion criteria.  But a reason you mentioned early on is that it's simply impossible for someone to be aware of every single clinical trial that's out there. And then even if you are aware of those clinical trials, to actually find the sites and put in the time could take hours. And so, how is AI going to revolutionize that? Because in my mind, it's not that we're inventing a new tool. Clinical trials have always been available. We just can't access them. So, if we have a tool that helps with access, wouldn't that be huge? Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Correct. And that has been one of my passions. And for those who know me and follow me and we've spoke about it in different settings, that's something that I think we can solve. This other paradox, which is the clinical trial enrollment paradox, right? We have tens of thousands of clinical trials available with millions of patients eager to learn about trials, but we don't enroll enough and many trials close to accrual because of lack of enrollment. It is completely paradoxical and it's because of that misalignment because patients don't know where to go for trials and sites don't know what patients they can help because they haven't reached their doors yet. So, the solution has to be patient-centric, right? We have to put the patient at the center of the equation. And that was precisely what we had been discussing during the ASCO meeting. There was an ASCO Education Session where we talked about digital prescreening hubs, where we, in a patient-centric manner, the same way we look for Uber, Instacart, any solution that you may think of that you want something that can be leveraged in real time, we can use these real-world data streams from the patient directly, from hospitals, from pathology labs, from genomics companies, to continuously screen patients who can match to the inclusion/exclusion criteria of unique trials. So, when the patient walks into the clinic, the system already knows if there's a trial and alerts the site proactively. The patient can actually also do decentralization. So, there's a number of decentralized clinical trial solutions that are using what I call the “click and mortar” approach, which is basically the patient is checking digitally and then goes to the site to activate. We can also have the click and mortar in the bidirectional way where the patient is engaged in person and then you give the solution like the ones that are being offered on things that we're doing at Massive Bio and beyond, which is having the patient to access all that information and then they make decisions and enroll when the time is right.  As I mentioned earlier, there is this concept drift where clinical trials open and close, the patient line of therapy changes, new approvals come in and out, and sites may not be available at a given time but may be later. So, having that real-time alerts using tools that are able already to extract data from summarization that we already have in different settings and doing this natural language ingestion, we can not only solve this issue with manual chart review, which is extremely cumbersome and takes forever and takes to a lot of one-time assessments with very high screen failures, to a real-time dynamic approach where the patient, as they get closer to that eligibility criteria, they get engaged. And those tools can be built to activate trials, audit trials, and make them better and accessible to patients. And something that we know is, for example, 91%-plus of Americans live close to either a pharmacy or an imaging center. So, imagine that we can potentially activate certain of those trials in those locations. So, there's a number of pharmacies, special pharmacies, Walgreens, and sometimes CVS trying to do some of those efforts. So, I think the sky's the limit in terms of us working together. And we've been talking with corporate groups, they're all interested in those efforts as well, to getting patients digitally enabled and then activate the same way we activate the NCTN network of the corporate groups, that are almost just-in-time. You can activate a trial the patient is eligible for and we get all these breakthroughs from the NIH and NCI, just activate it in my site within a week or so, as long as we have the understanding of the protocol. So, using clinical trial matching in a digitally enabled way and then activate in that same fashion, but not only for NCTN studies, but all the studies that we have available will be the key of the future through those prescreening hubs. So, I think now we're at this very important time where collaboration is the important part and having this silo-breaking approach with interoperability where we can leverage data from any data source and from any electronic medical records and whatnot is going to be essential for us to move forward because now we have the tools to do so with our phones, with our interests, and with the multiple clinical trials that are coming into the pipelines. Dr. Paul Hanona: I just want to point out that the way you described the process involves several variables that practitioners often don't think about. We don't realize the 15 steps that are happening in the background. But just as a clarifier, how much time is it taking now to get one patient enrolled on a clinical trial? Is it on the order of maybe 5 to 10 hours for one patient by the time the manual chart review happens, by the time the matching happens, the calls go out, the sign-up, all this? And how much time do you think a tool that could match those trials quicker and get you enrolled quicker could save? Would it be maybe an hour instead of 15 hours? What's your thought process on that? Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Yeah, exactly. So one is the matching, the other one is the enrollment, which, as you mentioned, is very important. So, it can take, from, as you said, probably between 4 days to sometimes 30 days. Sometimes that's how long it takes for all the things to be parsed out in terms of logistics and things that could be done now agentically. So, we can use agents to solve those different steps that may take multiple individuals. We can just do it as a supply chain approach where all those different steps can be done by a single agent in a simultaneous fashion and then we can get things much faster. With an AI-based solution using these frontier models and multi-agentic AI – and we presented some of this data in ASCO as well – you can do 5,000 patients in an hour, right? So, just enrolling is going to be between an hour and maximum enrollment, it could be 7 days for those 5,000 patients if it was done at scale in a multi-level approach where we have all the trials available. Dr. Paul Hanona: No, definitely a very exciting aspect of our future as oncologists. It's one thing to have really neat, novel mechanisms of treatment, but what good is it if we can't actually get it to people who need it? I'm very much looking for the future of that.  One of the last questions I want to ask you is another prevalent way that people use AI is just simply looking up questions, right? So, traditionally, the workflow for oncologists is maybe going on national guidelines and looking up the stage of the cancer and seeing what treatments are available and then referencing the papers and looking at who was included, who wasn't included, the side effects to be aware of, and sort of coming up with a decision as to how to treat a cancer patient. But now, just in the last few years, we've had several tools become available that make getting questions easier, make getting answers easier, whether that's something like OpenAI's tools or Perplexity or Doximity or OpenEvidence or even ASCO has a Guidelines Assistant as well that is drawing from their own guidelines as to how to treat different cancers. Do you see these replacing traditional sources? Do you see them saving us a lot more time so that we can be more productive in clinic? What do you think is the role that they're going to play with patient care? Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Such a relevant question, particularly at this time, because these AI-enabled query tools, they're coming left and right and becoming increasingly common in our daily workflows and things that we're doing. So, traditionally, when we go and we look for national guidelines, we try to understand the context ourselves and then we make treatment decisions accordingly. But that is a lot of a process that now AI is helping us to solve. So, at face value, it seems like an efficiency win, but in many cases, I personally evaluate platforms as the chief of hem/onc at St. Luke's and also having led the digital engagement things through Massive Bio and trying to put things together, I can tell you this: not all tools are created equal. In cancer care, each data point can mean the difference between cure and progression, so we cannot really take a lot of shortcuts in this case or have unverified output. So, the tools are helpful, but it has to be grounded in truth, in trusted data sources, and they need to be continuously updated with, like, ASCO and NCCN and others. So, the reason why the ASCO Guidelines Assistant, for instance, works is because it builds on all these recommendations, is assessed by end users like ourselves. So, that kind of verification is critical, right? We're entering a phase where even the source material may be AI-generated. So, the role of human expert validation is really actually more important, not less important. You know, generalist LLMs, even when fine-tuned, they may not be enough. You can pull a few API calls from PubMed, etc., but what we need now is specialized, context-aware, agentic tools that can interpret multimodal and real-time clinical inputs. So, something that we are continuing to check on and very relevant to have entities and bodies like ASCO looking into this so they can help us to be really efficient and really help our patients. Dr. Paul Hanona: Dr. Bonilla, what do you want to leave the listener with in terms of the future direction of AI, things that we should be cautious about, and things that we should be optimistic about? Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Looking 5 years ahead, I think there's enormous promise. As you know, I'm an AI enthusiast, but always, there's a few priorities that I think – 3 of them, I think – we need to tackle head-on. First is algorithmic equity. So, most AI tools today are trained on data from academic medical centers but not necessarily from community practices or underrepresented populations, particularly when you're looking at radiology, pathology, and what not. So, those blind spots, they need to be filled, and we can eliminate a lot of disparities in cancer care. So, those frameworks to incentivize while keeping the data sharing using federated models and things that we can optimize is key. The second one is the governance on the lifecycle. So, you know, AI is not really static. So, unlike a drug that is approved and it just, you know, works always, AI changes. So, we need to make sure that we have tools that are able to retrain and recall when things degrade or models drift. So, we need to use up-to-date AI for clinical practice, so we are going to be in constant revalidation and make it really easy to do. And lastly, the human-AI interface. You know, clinicians don't need more noise or we don't need more black boxes. We need decision support that is clear, that we can interpret, and that is actionable. “Why are you using this? Why did we choose this drug? Why this dose? Why now?” So, all these things are going to help us and that allows us to trace evidence with a single click. So, I always call it back to the Moravec's paradox where we say, you know, evolution gave us so much energy to discern in the sensory-neural and dexterity. That's what we're going to be taking care of patients. We can use AI to really be a force to help us to be better clinicians and not to really replace us. So, if we get this right and we decide for transparency with trust, inclusion, etc., it will never replace any of our work, which is so important, as much as we want, we can actually take care of patients and be personalized, timely, and equitable. So, all those things are what get me excited every single day about these conversations on AI. Dr. Paul Hanona: All great thoughts, Dr. Bonilla. I'm very excited to see how this field evolves. I'm excited to see how oncologists really come to this field. I think with technology, there's always a bit of a lag in adopting it, but I think if we jump on board and grow with it, we can do amazing things for the field of oncology in general. Thank you for the advancements that you've made in your own career in the field of AI and oncology and just ultimately with the hopeful outcomes of improving patient care, especially cancer patients. Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Thank you so much, Dr. Hanona. Dr. Paul Hanona: Thanks to our listeners for your time today. If you value the insights that you hear on ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. More on today's speakers:    Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla @DrBonillaOnc Dr. Paul Hanona @DoctorDiscover on YouTube Follow ASCO on social media:      @ASCO on Twitter      ASCO on Facebook      ASCO on LinkedIn    ASCO on BlueSky Disclosures: Paul Hanona: No relationships to disclose. Dr. Arturo-Loaiza-Bonilla: Leadership: Massive Bio Stock & Other Ownership Interests: Massive Bio Consulting or Advisory Role: Massive Bio, Bayer, PSI, BrightInsight, CardinalHealth, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Medscape Speakers' Bureau: Guardant Health, Ipsen, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo, Natera

Dr. Diwakar Davar and Dr. Jason Luke discuss novel agents in melanoma and other promising new data in the field of immunotherapy that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Diwakar Davar: Hello. My name is Diwakar Davar, and I am welcoming you to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm an associate professor of medicine and the clinical director of the Melanoma and Skin Cancer Program at the University of Pittsburgh's Hillman Cancer Center. Today, I'm joined by my colleague and good friend, Dr. Jason Luke. Dr. Luke is a professor of medicine. He is also the associate director of clinical research and the director of the Phase 1 IDDC Program at the University of Pittsburgh's Hillman Cancer Center. He and I are going to be discussing some key advancements in melanoma and skin cancers that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Jason, it is great to have you back on the podcast. Dr. Jason Luke: Thanks again so much for the opportunity, and I'm really looking forward to it. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Perfect. So we will go ahead and start talking a little bit about a couple of key abstracts in both the drug development immunotherapy space and the melanoma space. The first couple of abstracts, the first two, will cover melanoma. So, the first is LBA9500, which was essentially the primary results of RELATIVITY-098. RELATIVITY-098 was a phase 3 trial that compared nivolumab plus relatlimab in a fixed-dose combination against nivolumab alone for the adjuvant treatment of resected high-risk disease. Jason, do you want to maybe give us a brief context of what this is? Dr. Jason Luke: Yeah, it's great, thanks. So as almost all listeners, of course, will be aware, the use of anti–PD-1 immunotherapies really revolutionized melanoma oncology over the last 10 to 15 years. And it has become a standard of care in the adjuvant setting as well. But to review, in patients with stage III melanoma, treatment can be targeted towards BRAF with BRAF and MEK combination therapy, where that's relevant, or anti–PD-1 with nivolumab or pembrolizumab are a standard of care. And more recently, we've had the development of neoadjuvant approaches for palpable stage III disease. And in that space, if patients present, based on two different studies, either pembrolizumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab can be given prior to surgery for somewhere in the 6- to 9-week range. And so all of these therapies have improved time-to-event endpoints, such as relapse-free or event-free survival. It's worth noting, however, that despite those advances, we've had a couple different trials now that have actually failed in this adjuvant setting, most high profile being the CheckMate-915 study, which looked at nivolumab plus ipilimumab and unfortunately was a negative study. So, with RELATIVITY-047, which was the trial of nivolumab plus relatlimab that showed an improvement in progression-free survival for metastatic disease, there's a lot of interest, and we've been awaiting these data for a long time for RELATIVITY-098, which, of course, is this adjuvant trial of LAG-3 blockade with relatlimab plus nivolumab. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Great. So with that, let's briefly discuss the trial design and the results. So this was a randomized, phase 3, blinded study, so double-blinded, so neither the investigators knew what the patients were getting, nor did the patients know what they were getting. The treatment investigational arm was nivolumab plus relatlimab in the fixed-dose combination. So that's the nivolumab standard fixed dose with relatlimab that was FDA approved in RELATIVITY-047. And the control arm was nivolumab by itself. The duration of treatment was 1 year. The patient population consisted of resected high-risk stage III or IV patients. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed RFS. Stage and geography were the standard stratifying factors, and they were included, and most of the criteria were balanced across both arms. What we know at this point is that the 2-year RFS rate was 64% and 62% in the nivolumab and nivolumab-combination arms, respectively. The 2-year DMFS rate was similarly equivalent: 76% with nivolumab monotherapy, 73% with the combination. And similar to what you had talked about with CheckMate 915, unfortunately, the addition of LAG-3 did not appear to improve the RFS or DMFS compared to control in this patient population. So, tell us a little bit about your take on this and what do you think might be the reasons why this trial was negative? Dr. Jason Luke: It's really unfortunate that we have this negative phase 3 trial. There had been a lot of hope that the combination of nivolumab with relatlimab would be a better tolerated combination that increased the efficacy. So in the metastatic setting, we do have 047, the study that demonstrated nivolumab plus relatlimab, but now we have this negative trial in the adjuvant setting. And so as to why exactly, I think is a complicated scenario. You know, when we look at the hazard ratios for relapse-free survival, the primary endpoint, as well as the secondary endpoints for distant metastasis-free survival, we see that the hazard ratio is approximately 1. So there's basically no difference. And that really suggests that relatlimab in this setting had no impact whatsoever on therapeutic outcomes in terms of efficacy. Now, it's worth noting that there was a biomarker subanalysis that was presented in conjunction with these data that looked at some immunophenotyping, both from circulating T cells, CD8 T cells, as well as from the tumor microenvironment from patients who were treated, both in the previous metastatic trial, the RELATIVITY-047 study, and now in this adjuvant study in the RELATIVITY-098 study. And to briefly summarize those, what was identified was that T cells in advanced melanoma seemed to have higher expression levels of LAG-3 relative to T cells that are circulating in patients that are in the adjuvant setting. In addition to that, there was a suggestion that the magnitude of increase is greater in the advanced setting versus adjuvant. And the overall summary of this is that the suggested rationale for why this was a negative trial may have been that the target of LAG-3 is not expressed as highly in the adjuvant setting as it is in the metastatic setting. And so while the data that were presented, I think, support this kind of an idea, I am a little bit cautious that this is actually the reason for why the trial was negative, however. I would say we're not really sure yet as to why the trial was negative, but the fact that the hazard ratios for the major endpoints were essentially 1 suggests that there was no impact whatsoever from relatlimab. And this really makes one wonder whether or not building on anti–PD-1 in the adjuvant setting is feasible because anti–PD-1 works so well. You would think that even if the levels of LAG-3 expression were slightly different, you would have seen a trend in one direction or another by adding a second drug, relatlimab, in this scenario. So overall, I think it's an unfortunate circumstance that the trial is negative. Clearly there's going to be no role for relatlimab in the adjuvant setting. I think this really makes one wonder about the utility of LAG-3 blockade and how powerful it really can be. I think it's probably worth pointing out there's another adjuvant trial ongoing now of a different PD-1 and LAG-3 combination, and that's cemiplimab plus fianlimab, a LAG-3 antibody that's being dosed from another trial sponsor at a much higher dose, and perhaps that may make some level of difference. But certainly, these are unfortunate results that will not advance the field beyond where we were at already. Dr. Diwakar Davar: And to your point about third-generation checkpoint factors that were negative, I guess it's probably worth noting that a trial that you were involved with, KeyVibe-010, that evaluated the PD-1 TIGIT co-formulation of vibostolimab, MK-4280A, was also, unfortunately, similarly negative. So, to your point, it's not clear that all these third-generation receptors are necessarily going to have the same impact in the adjuvant setting, even if they, you know, for example, like TIGIT, and they sometimes may not even have an effect at all in the advanced cancer setting. So, we'll see what the HARMONY phase 3 trial, that's the Regeneron cemiplimab/fianlimab versus pembrolizumab control with cemiplimab with fianlimab at two different doses, we'll see how that reads out. But certainly, as you've said, LAG-3 does not, unfortunately, appear to have an impact in the adjuvant setting. So let's move on to LBA9501. This is the primary analysis of EORTC-2139-MG or the Columbus-AD trial. This was a randomized trial of encorafenib and binimetinib, which we will abbreviate as enco-bini going forward, compared to placebo in high-risk stage II setting in melanoma in patients with BRAF V600E or K mutant disease. So Jason, you know, you happen to know one or two things about the resected stage II setting, so maybe contextualize the stage II setting for us based on the trials that you've led, KEYNOTE-716, as well as CheckMate-76K, set us up to talk about Columbus-AD. Dr. Jason Luke: Thanks for that introduction, and certainly stage II disease has been something I've worked a lot on. The rationale for that has been that building off of the activity of anti–PD-1 in metastatic melanoma and then seeing the activity in stage III, like we just talked about, it was a curious circumstance that dating back about 7 to 8 years ago, there was no availability to use anti–PD-1 for high-risk stage II patients, even though the risk of recurrence and death from melanoma in the context of stage IIB and IIC melanoma is in fact similar or actually higher than in stage IIIA or IIIB, where anti–PD-1 was approved. And in that context, a couple of different trials that you alluded to, the Keynote-716 study that I led, as well as the CheckMate 76K trial, evaluated pembrolizumab and nivolumab, respectively, showing an improvement in relapse-free and distant metastasis-free survival, and both of those agents have subsequently been approved for use in the adjuvant setting by the US FDA as well as the European Medicines Agency.  So bringing then to this abstract, throughout melanoma oncology, we've seen that the impact of anti–PD-1 immunotherapy versus BRAF and MEK-targeted therapy have had very similar outcomes on a sort of comparison basis, both in frontline metastatic and then in adjuvant setting. So it was a totally reasonable question to ask: Could we use adjuvant BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy? And I think all of us expected the answer would be yes. As we get into the discussion of the trial, I think the unfortunate circumstance was that the timing of this clinical trial being delayed somewhat, unfortunately, made it very difficult to accrue the trial, and so we're going to have to try to read through the tea leaves sort of, based on only a partially complete data set. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, in terms of the results, they wanted to enroll 815 patients, they only enrolled 110. The RFS and DMFS were marginally improved in the treatment arm but certainly not significantly, which is not surprising because the trial had only accrued 16% to 18% of its complete accrual. As such, we really can't abstract from the stage III COMBI-AD data to stage II patients. And certainly in this setting, one would argue that the primary treatment options certainly remain either anti–PD-1 monotherapy, either with pembrolizumab or nivolumab, based on 716 or 76K, or potentially active surveillance for the patients who are not inclined to get treated.  Can you tell us a little bit about how you foresee drug development going forward in this space because, you know, for example, with HARMONY, certainly IIC disease is a part of HARMONY. We will know at least a little bit about that in this space. So what do you think about the stage IIB/C patient population? Is this a patient population in which future combinations are going to be helpful, and how would you think about where we can go forward from here? Dr. Jason Luke: It is an unfortunate circumstance that this trial could not be accrued at the pace that was necessary. I think all of us believe that the results would have been positive if they'd been able to accrue the trial. In the preliminary data set that they did disclose of that 110 patients, you know, it's clear there is a difference at a, you know, a landmark at a year. They showed a 16% difference, and that would be in line with what has been seen in stage III. And so, you know, I think it's really kind of too bad. There's really going to be no regulatory approach for this consideration. So using BRAF and MEK inhibition in stage II is not going to be part of standard practice moving into the future. To your point, though, about where will the field go? I think what we're already realizing is that in the adjuvant setting, we're really overtreating the total population. And so beyond merely staging by AJCC criteria, we need to move to biomarker selection to help inform which patients truly need the treatment. And in that regard, I don't think we've crystallized together as a field as yet, but the kinds of things that people are thinking about are the integration of molecular biomarkers like ctDNA. When it's positive, it can be very helpful, but in melanoma, we found that, unfortunately, the rates are quite low, you know, in the 10% to 15% range in the adjuvant setting. So then another consideration would be factors in the primary tumor, such as gene expression profiling or other considerations.  And so I think the future of adjuvant clinical trials will be an integration of both the standard AJCC staging system as well as some kind of overlaid molecular biomarker that helps to enrich for a higher-risk population of patients because on a high level, when you abstract out, it's just clearly the case that we're rather substantially overtreating the totality of the population, especially given that in all of our adjuvant studies to date for anti–PD-1, we have not yet shown that there's an overall survival advantage. And so some are even arguing perhaps we should even reserve treatment until patients progress. I think that's a complicated subject, and standard of care at this point is to offer adjuvant therapy, but certainly a lot more to do because many patients, you know, unfortunately, still do progress and move on to metastatic disease. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Let's transition to Abstract 2508. So we're moving on from the melanoma to the novel immunotherapy abstracts. And this is a very, very, very fascinating drug. It's IMA203. So Abstract 2508 is a phase 1 clinical update of IMA203. IMA203 is an autologous TCR-T construct targeting PRAME in patients with heavily pretreated PD-1-refractory metastatic melanoma. So Jason, in the PD-1 and CTLA-4-refractory settings, treatment options are either autologous TIL, response rate, you know, ballpark 29% to 31%, oncolytic viral therapy, RP1 with nivolumab, ORR about 30-ish percent. So new options are needed. Can you tell us a little bit about IMA203? Perhaps tell us for the audience, what is the difference between a TCR-T and traditional autologous TIL? And a little bit about this drug, IMA203, and how it distinguishes itself from the competing TIL products in the landscape. Dr. Jason Luke: I'm extremely enthusiastic about IMA203. I think that it really has transformative potential based on these results and hopefully from the phase 3 trial that's open to accrual now. So, what is IMA203? We said it's a TCR-T cell product. So what that means is that T cells are removed from a patient, and then they can be transduced through various technologies, but inserted into those T cells, we can then add a T-cell receptor that's very specific to a single antigen, and in this case, it's PRAME. So that then is contrasted quite a bit from the TIL process, which includes a surgical resection of a tumor where T cells are removed, but they're not specific necessarily to the cancer, and they're grown up in the lab and then given to the patient. They're both adoptive cell transfer products, but they're very different. One is genetically modified, and the other one is not. And so the process for generating a TCR-T cell is that patients are required to have a new biomarker that some may not be familiar with, which is HLA profiling. So the T-cell receptor requires matching to the concomitant HLA for which the peptide is bound in. And so the classic one that is used in most oncology practices is A*02:01 because approximately 48% of Caucasians have A*02:01, and the frequency of HLA in other ethnicities starts to become highly variable. But in patients who are identified to have A*02:01 genotype, we can then remove blood via leukapheresis or an apheresis product, and then insert via lentiviral transduction this T-cell receptor targeting PRAME. Patients are then brought back to the hospital where they can receive lymphodepleting chemotherapy and then receive the reinfusion of the TCR-T cells. Again, in contrast with the TIL process, however, these T cells are extremely potent, and we do not need to give high-dose interleukin-2, which is administered in the context of TIL. Given that process, we have this clinical trial in front of us now, and at ASCO, the update was from the phase 1 study, which was looking at IMA203 in an efficacy population of melanoma patients who were refractory at checkpoint blockade and actually multiple lines of therapy. So here, there were 33 patients and a response rate of approximately 50% was observed in this population of patients, notably with a duration of response approximately a year in that treatment group. And I realize that these were heavily pretreated patients who had a range of very high-risk features. And approximately half the population had uveal melanoma, which people may be aware is a generally speaking more difficult-to-treat subtype of melanoma that metastasizes to the liver, which again has been a site of resistance to cancer immunotherapy. So these results are extremely promising. To summarize them from what I said, it's easier to make TCR-T cells because we can remove blood from the patient to transduce the T cells, and we don't have to put them through surgery. We can then infuse them, and based on these results, it looks like the response rate to IMA203 is a little bit more than double what we expect from lifileucel. And then, whereas with lifileucel or TILs, we have to give high-dose IL-2, here we do not have to give high-dose IL-2. And so that's pretty promising. And a clinical trial is ongoing now called the SUPREME phase 3 clinical trial, which is hoping to validate these results in a randomized global study. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Now, one thing that I wanted to go over with you, because you know this trial particularly well, is what you think of the likelihood of success, and then we'll talk a little bit about the trial design. But in your mind, do you think that this is a trial that has got a reasonable likelihood of success, maybe even a high likelihood of success? And maybe let's contextualize that to say an alternative trial, such as, for example, the TebeAM trial, which is essentially a T-cell bispecific targeting GP100. It's being compared against SOC, investigator's choice control, also in a similarly heavily pretreated patient population. Dr. Jason Luke: So both trials, I think, have a strong chance of success. They are very different kinds of agents. And so the CD3 bispecific that you referred to, tebentafusp, likely has an effect of delaying progression, which in patients with advanced disease could have a value that might manifest as overall survival. With TCR-T cells, by contrast, we see a very high response rate with some of the patients going into very durable long-term benefit. And so I do think that the SUPREME clinical trial has a very high chance of success. It will be the first clinical trial in solid tumor oncology randomizing patients to receive a cell therapy as compared with a standard of care. And within that standard of care control arm, TILs are allowed as a treatment. And so it will also be the first study that will compare TCR-T cells against TILs in a randomized phase 3. But going back to the data that we've seen in the phase 1 trial, what we observe is that the duration of response is really connected to the quality of the response, meaning if you have more than a 50% tumor shrinkage, those patients do very, very well. But even in patients who have less than 50% tumor shrinkage, the median progression-free survival right now is about 4.5 months. And again, as we think about trial design, standard of care options for patients who are in this situation are unfortunately very bad. And the progression-free survival in that population is probably more like 2 months. So this is a trial that has a very high likelihood of being positive because the possibility of long-term response is there, but even for patients who don't get a durable response, they're likely going to benefit more than they would have based on standard chemotherapy or retreatment with an anti–PD-1 agent. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Really, a very important trial to enroll, a trial that is first in many ways. First of a new generation of TCR-T agents, first trial to look at cell therapy in the control arm, a new standard of efficacy, but potentially also if this trial is successful, it will also be a new standard of trial conduct, a new kind of trial, of a set of trials that will be done in the second-line immunotherapy-refractory space. So let's pivot to the last trial that we were going to discuss, which was Abstract 2501. Abstract 2501 is a first-in-human phase 1/2 trial evaluating BNT142, which is the first-in-class mRNA-encoded bispecific targeting Claudin-6 and CD3 in patients with Claudin-positive tumors. We'll talk a little bit about this, but maybe let's start by talking a little bit about Claudin-6. So Claudin-6 is a very interesting new target. It's a target that's highly expressed in GI and ovarian tumors. There are a whole plethora of Claudin-6-targeting agents, including T-cell bispecifics and Claudin-6-directed CAR-Ts that are being developed. But BNT142 is novel. It's a novel lipid nanoparticle LNP-encapsulated mRNA. The mRNA encodes an anti–Claudin-6 CD3 bispecific termed RiboMAB-021. And it then is administered to the patient. The BNT142-encoding mRNA LNPs are taken up by the liver and translated into the active drug. So Jason, tell us a little bit about this agent. Why you think it's novel, if you think it's novel, and let's talk a little bit then about the results. Dr. Jason Luke: So I certainly think this is a novel agent, and I think this is just the first of what will probably become a new paradigm in oncology drug development. And so you alluded to this, but just to rehash it quickly, the drug is encoded as genetic information that's placed in the lipid nanoparticle and then is infused into the patient. And after the lipid nanoparticles are taken up by the liver, which is the most common place that LNPs are usually taken up, that genetic material in the mRNA starts to be translated into the actual protein, and that protein is the drug. So this is in vivo generation, so the patient is making their own drug inside their body. I think it's a really, really interesting approach. So for any drug that could be encoded as a genetic sequence, and in this case, it's a bispecific, as you mentioned, CD3-Claudin-6 engager, this could have a tremendous impact on how we think about pharmacology and novel drug development moving into the future in oncology. So I think it's an extremely interesting drug, the like of which we'll probably see only more moving forward. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Let's maybe briefly talk about the results. You know, the patient population was heavily pretreated, 65 or so patients, mostly ovarian cancer. Two-thirds of the patients were ovarian cancer, the rest were germ cell and lung cancer patients. But let's talk a little bit about the efficacy. The disease control rate was about 58% in the phase 1 population as a whole, but 75% in the ovarian patient population. Now tell us a little bit about the interesting things about the drug in terms of the pharmacokinetics, and also then maybe we can pivot to the clinical activity by dose level. Dr. Jason Luke: Well, so they did present in their presentation at ASCO a proportionality showing that as higher doses were administered, that greater amounts of the drug were being made inside the patient. And so that's an interesting observation, and it's an important one, right? Suggesting that the pharmacology that we classically think of by administering drugs by IV, for example, would still be in play. And that did translate into some level of efficacy, particularly at the higher dose levels. Now, the caveat that I'll make a note of is that disease control rate is an endpoint that I think we have to be careful about because what that really means is sometimes a little bit unclear. Sometimes patients have slowly growing tumors and so on and so forth. And the clinical relevance of disease control, if it doesn't last at least 6 months, I think is probably pretty questionable. So I think these are extremely interesting data, and there's some preliminary sense that getting the dose up is going to matter because the treatment responses were mostly observed at the highest dose levels. There's also a caveat, however, that across the field of CD3 bispecific molecules like this, there's been quite a bit of heterogeneity in terms of the response rate, with some of them only really generating stable disease responses and other ones having more robust responses. And so I think this is a really interesting initial foray into this space. My best understanding is this molecule is not moving forward further after this, but I think that this really does set it up to be able to chase after multiple different drug targets on a CD3 bispecific backbone, both in ovarian cancer, but then basically across all of oncology. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Perfect. This is a very new sort of exciting arena where we're going to be looking at, in many ways, these programmable constructs, whether we're looking at in vivo-generated, in this case, a T-cell bispecific, but we've also got newer drugs where we are essentially giving drugs where people are generating in vivo CAR T, and also potentially even in vivo TCR-T. But certainly lots of new excitement around this entire class of drugs. And so, what we'd like to do at this point in time is switch to essentially the fact that we've got a very, very exciting set of data at ASCO 2025. You've heard from Dr. Luke regarding the advances in both early drug development but also in advanced cutaneous melanoma. And Jason, as always, thank you so much for sharing your very valuable and great, fantastic insights with us on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Jason Luke: Well, thanks again for the opportunity. Dr. Diwakar Davar: And thank you to our listeners for taking your time to listen today. You will find the links to the abstracts that we discussed today in the transcript of this episode. And finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers:    Dr. Diwakar Davar    @diwakardavar    Dr. Jason Luke @jasonlukemd Follow ASCO on social media:     @ASCO on Twitter       ASCO on Bluesky   ASCO on Facebook       ASCO on LinkedIn   Disclosures:     Dr. Diwakar Davar:      Honoraria: Merck, Tesaro, Array BioPharma, Immunocore, Instil Bio, Vedanta Biosciences     Consulting or Advisory Role: Instil Bio, Vedanta Biosciences     Consulting or Advisory Role (Immediate family member): Shionogi     Research Funding: Merck, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CellSight Technologies, GSK, Merck, Arvus Biosciences, Arcus Biosciences     Research Funding (Inst.): Zucero Therapeutics     Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Application No.: 63/124,231 Title: COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR TREATING CANCER Applicant: University of Pittsburgh–Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education Inventors: Diwakar Davar Filing Date: December 11, 2020 Country: United States MCC Reference: 10504-059PV1 Your Reference: 05545; and Application No.: 63/208,719 Enteric Microbiotype Signatures of Immune-related Adverse Events and Response in Relation to Anti-PD-1 Immunotherapy     Dr. Jason Luke:     Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Actym Therapeutics, Mavu Pharmaceutical, Pyxis, Alphamab Oncology, Tempest Therapeutics, Kanaph Therapeutics, Onc.AI, Arch Oncology, Stipe, NeoTX     Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, EMD Serono, Novartis, 7 Hills Pharma, Janssen, Reflexion Medical, Tempest Therapeutics, Alphamab Oncology, Spring Bank, Abbvie, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Incyte, Mersana, Partner Therapeutics, Synlogic, Eisai, Werewolf, Ribon Therapeutics, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Regeneron, Rubius, Tesaro, Xilio, Xencor, Alnylam, Crown Bioscience, Flame Biosciences, Genentech, Kadmon, KSQ Therapeutics, Immunocore, Inzen, Pfizer, Silicon Therapeutics, TRex Bio, Bright Peak, Onc.AI, STipe, Codiak Biosciences, Day One Therapeutics, Endeavor, Gilead Sciences, Hotspot Therapeutics, SERVIER, STINGthera, Synthekine     Research Funding (Inst.): Merck , Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie, Macrogenics, Xencor, Array BioPharma, Agios, Astellas Pharma , EMD Serono, Immatics, Kadmon, Moderna Therapeutics, Nektar, Spring bank, Trishula, KAHR Medical, Fstar, Genmab, Ikena Oncology, Numab, Replimmune, Rubius Therapeutics, Synlogic, Takeda, Tizona Therapeutics, Inc., BioNTech AG, Scholar Rock, Next Cure     Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Serial #15/612,657 (Cancer Immunotherapy), and Serial #PCT/US18/36052 (Microbiome Biomarkers for Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Responsiveness: Diagnostic, Prognostic and Therapeutic Uses Thereof)     Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Array BioPharma, EMD Serono, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Reflexion Medical, Mersana, Pyxis, Xilio

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal and Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching discuss important advances in the treatment of prostate, bladder, and kidney cancers that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I am Dr. Neeraj Agarwal, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I am the director of the Genitourinary Oncology Program and a professor of medicine at the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute and editor-in-chief of the ASCO Daily News.  I am delighted to be joined by Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching, a GU medical oncologist and the clinical program director of the GU Center at the Inova Schar Cancer Institute in Virginia. Today, we will be discussing some key abstracts in GU oncology that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Jeanny, it is great to have you on the podcast. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Oh, thank you so much, Neeraj. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Jeanny, let's begin with some prostate cancer abstracts. Let's begin with Abstract 5017 titled, “Phase 1 study results of JNJ-78278343 (pasritamig) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.” Can you walk us through the design and the key findings of this first-in-human trial? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yeah, absolutely, Neeraj. So this study, presented by Dr. Capucine Baldini, introduces pasritamig, a first-in-class T-cell redirecting bispecific antibody that simultaneously binds KLK2 on prostate cancer cells and CD3 receptor complexes on T cells. KLK2 is also known as human kallikrein 2, which is selectively expressed in prostate tissue. And for reference, KLK3 is what we now know as the PSA, prostate-specific antigen, therefore making it an attractive and specific target for therapeutic engagement. Now, while this was an early, first-in-human, phase 1 study, it enrolled 174 heavily pretreated metastatic CRPC patients. So many were previously treated with ARPIs, taxanes, and radioligand therapy. So given the phase 1 nature of this study, the primary objective was to determine the safety and the RP2D, which is the recommended phase 2 dose. Secondary objectives included preliminary assessment of antitumor activity. So, pasritamig was generally well tolerated. There were no treatment-related deaths. Serious adverse events were rare. And in the RP2D safety cohort, where patients received the step-up dosing up to 300 mg of IV every 6 weeks, the most common treatment-related adverse events were low-grade infusion reactions. There was fatigue and grade 1 cytokine release syndrome, what we call CRS. And no cases of neurotoxicity, or what we call ICANS, the immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, reported. Importantly, the CRS occurred in just about 8.9% of patients. All were grade 1. No patients required tocilizumab or discontinued treatment due to adverse events. So, this suggests a favorable safety profile, allowing hopefully for outpatient administration without hospitalization, which will be very important when we're thinking about bispecifics moving forward. In terms of efficacy, pasritamig showed promising activity. About 42.4% of evaluable patients achieved a PSA50 response. Radiographic PFS was about 6.8 months. And among patients with measurable disease, the objective response rate was about 16.1% in those with lymph node or bone metastases, and about 3.7% in those with visceral disease, with a median duration of response of about 11.3 months. So, altogether, this data suggests that pasritamig may offer a well-tolerated and active new potential option for patients with metastatic CRPC.   Again, as a reminder, with the caveat that this is still an early phase 1 study. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Jeanny. These are promising results for a bispecific T-cell engager, pasritamig, in prostate cancer. I agree, the safety and durability observed here stand out, and this opens the door for further development, possibly even in earlier disease settings.  So, shifting now from immunotherapy to the evolving role of genomics in prostate cancer. So let's discuss Abstract 5094, a real-world, retrospective analysis exploring the prognostic impact of homologous recombination repair gene mutations, especially BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Can you tell us more about this abstract, Jeanny? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Sure, Neeraj. So this study was presented by Dr. David Olmos, represents one of the largest real-world analyses we have evaluating the impact of homologous recombination repair, or what we would call HRR, alterations in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. So, this cohort included 556 men who underwent paired germline and somatic testing. Now, about 30% of patients had HRR alterations, with about 12% harboring BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and 16% having alterations in other HRR genes. Importantly, patients were stratified via CHAARTED disease volume, and outcomes were examined across treatment approaches, including ADT alone, doublet therapy, and triplet therapy. The prevalence of BRCA and HRR alterations were about similar between the metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and the metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, with no differences observed, actually, between the patients with high volume versus low volume disease.  So, the key finding was that BRCA and HRR alterations were associated with poor clinical outcomes in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. And notably, the impact of these alterations may actually be even greater in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer than previously reported in metastatic CRPC. So, the data showed that when BRCA mutations are present, the impact of the volume of disease is actually limited. So, poor outcomes were observed across the board for both high-volume and low-volume groups. So, the analysis showed that patients with HRR alterations had significantly worse outcomes compared to patients without HRR alterations. Median radiographic progression-free survival was about 20.5 months for the HRR-altered patients versus 30.6 months for the non-HRR patients, with a hazard ratio of 1.6. Median overall survival was 39 months for HRR-altered patients compared to 55.7 months for the non-HRR patients, with a hazard ratio of 1.5. Similar significant differences were observed when BRCA-mutant patients were compared with patients harboring non-BRCA HRR mutations. Overall, poor outcomes were independent of treatment of ARPI or taxanes. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Jeanny. So, these data reinforce homologous recombination repair mutations as both a predictive and prognostic biomarker, not only in the mCRPC, but also in the metastatic hormone-sensitive setting as well. It also makes a strong case for incorporating genomic testing early in the disease course and not waiting until our patients have castration-resistant disease. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Absolutely, Neeraj. And I think this really brings home the point and the lead up to the AMPLITUDE trial, which is LBA5006, a phase 3 trial that builds on this very concept of testing with a PARP inhibitor, niraparib, in the hormone-sensitive space. Can you tell us a little bit more about this abstract, Neeraj? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure. So, the AMPLITUDE trial, a phase 3 trial presented by Dr. Gerhardt Attard, enrolled 696 patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and HRR gene alterations. 56% of these patients had BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Patients were randomized to receive abiraterone with or without niraparib, a PARP inhibitor. The majority of patients, 78% of these patients, had high-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, and 87% of these patients had de novo metastatic HSPC. And 16% of these patients received prior docetaxel, which was allowed in the clinical trial. So, with a median follow-up of nearly 31 months, radiographic progression-free survival was significantly prolonged with the niraparib plus abiraterone combination, and median was not reached in this arm, compared to abiraterone alone, which was 29.5 months, with a hazard ratio of 0.63, translating to a 37% reduction in risk of progression or death. This benefit was even more pronounced in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 subgroup, with a 48% reduction in risk of progression, with a hazard ratio of 0.52. Time to symptomatic progression also improved significantly across all patients, including patients with BRCA1, BRCA2, and HRR mutations. Although overall survival data remain immature, early trends favored the niraparib plus abiraterone combination. The safety profile was consistent with prior PARP inhibitor studies, with grade 3 or higher anemia and hypertension were more common but manageable. Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events remained low at 11%, suggesting that timely dose modifications when our patients experience grade 3 side effects may allow our patients to continue treatment without discontinuation. These findings support niraparib plus abiraterone as a potential new standard of care in our patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer with HRR alterations, and especially in those who had BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you, Neeraj. This trial is especially exciting because it brings PARP inhibitors earlier into the treatment paradigm. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Exactly. And it is exciting to see the effect of PARP inhibitors in the earlier setting.  So Jeanny, now let's switch gears a bit to bladder cancer, which also saw several impactful studies. Could you tell us about Abstract 4502, an exploratory analysis from the EV-302 trial, which led to approval of enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab for our patients with newly diagnosed metastatic bladder cancer? So here, the authors looked at the outcomes in patients who achieved a confirmed complete response with EV plus pembrolizumab. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Sure, Neeraj. So, EV-302 demonstrated significant improvements in progression-free and overall survival for patients previously treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer, I'll just call it metastatic UC, as a frontline strategy, establishing EV, which is enfortumab vedotin, plus pembro, with pembrolizumab as standard of care in this setting.  So, this year at ASCO, Dr Shilpa Gupta presented this exploratory responder analysis from the phase 3 EV-302 trial. Among 886 randomized patients, about 30.4% of patients, this is about 133, in the EV+P arm, and 14.5% of the patients in the chemotherapy arm, achieved a confirmed complete response. They call it the CCR rates. So for patients who achieved this, median PFS was not reached with EV+P compared to 26.9 months with chemotherapy, with a hazard ratio of 0.36, translating to a 64% reduction in the risk of progression. Overall survival was also improved. So the median OS was not reached in either arm, but the hazard ratio favored the EV+P at 0.37, translating to a 63% reduction in the risk of death. The median duration of complete response was not reached with EV+P compared to 15.2 months with chemotherapy. And among those patients who had confirmed CRs at 24 months, 78% of patients with the EV+P arm remained progression-free, and around 95% of the patients were alive, compared to 54% of patients who were progression-free and 86% alive of the patients in the chemotherapy arm. Safety among responders were also consistent with prior reports. Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 62% of EV+P responders and 72% of chemotherapy responders. Most adverse events were managed with dose modifications, and importantly, no treatment-related deaths were reported among those who were able to achieve complete response.  So these findings further reinforce EV and pembro as the preferred first-line therapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma, offering a higher likelihood of deep, durable responses with a fairly manageable safety profile. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you for the great summary, Jeanny. These findings underscore the depth and durability of responses achievable with this combination and also suggest that achieving a response may be a surrogate for long-term benefit in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma.  So now, let's move to Abstract 4503, an exploratory ctDNA analysis from the NIAGARA trial, which evaluated perioperative durvalumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor, in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. So what can you tell us about this abstract? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Absolutely, Neeraj. So, in NIAGARA, presented by Dr. Tom Powles, the addition of perioperative durvalumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, gem/cis, significantly improved event-free survival, overall survival, and pathologic complete response in patients with cisplatin-eligible muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Recall that this led to the U.S. FDA approval of this treatment regimen on March 28, 2025.  So, a planned exploratory analysis evaluated the ctDNA dynamics and their association with clinical outcomes, which was the one presented recently at ASCO. So, the study found that the incidence of finding ctDNA positivity in these patients was about 57%. Following neoadjuvant treatment, this dropped to about 22%, with ctDNA clearance being more common in the durvalumab arm, about 41%, compared to the chemotherapy control arm of 31%. Notably, 97% of patients who remained ctDNA positive prior to surgery failed to achieve a pathologic CR. So, this indicates a strong association between ctDNA persistence and lack of tumor eradication. So, postoperatively, only about 9% of patients were ctDNA positive. So, importantly, durvalumab conferred an event-free survival benefit regardless of ctDNA status at both baseline and post-surgery. Among patients who were ctDNA positive at baseline, durvalumab led to a hazard ratio of 0.73 for EFS. So, this translates to a 27% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence, progression, or death compared to the control arm. In the post-surgical ctDNA-positive group, the disease-free survival was also improved with a hazard ratio of 0.49, translating to a 51% reduction in the risk of recurrence.  So, these findings underscore the prognostic value of ctDNA and suggest that durvalumab provides clinical benefit irrespective of molecular residual disease status. So, the data also supports that ctDNA is a promising biomarker for future personalized strategies in the perioperative treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Jeanny. It is great to see that durvalumab is improving outcomes in these patients regardless of ctDNA status. However, based on these data, presence of ctDNA in our patients warrants a closer follow-up with imaging studies, because these patients with positive ctDNA seem to have a higher risk of recurrence. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: I agree, Neeraj.  Let's round out the bladder cancer discussion with Abstract 4518, which reported the interim results of SURE-02, which is a phase 2 study evaluating neoadjuvant sacituzumab govitecan plus pembrolizumab in cisplatin-ineligible muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Can you tell us more about this abstract, Neeraj? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure, Jeanny. So, Dr Andrea Necchi presented interim results from the SURE-02 trial. This is a phase 2 study evaluating neoadjuvant sacituzumab govitecan plus pembrolizumab, followed by a response-adapted bladder-sparing treatment and adjuvant pembrolizumab in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer.  So, in this interim analysis, 40 patients were treated and 31 patients were evaluable for efficacy. So, the clinical complete response rate was 38.7%. All patients achieving clinical complete response underwent bladder-sparing approach with a repeat TURBT instead of radical cystectomy. Additionally, 51.6% of patients achieved excellent pathologic response with a T stage of 1 or less after neoadjuvant therapy. The treatment was well tolerated, with only 12.9% of patients experiencing grade 3 or higher adverse events without needing dose reduction of sacituzumab. Molecular profiling, interestingly, showed that clinical complete response correlated with luminal and genomically unstable subtypes, while high stromal gene expression was associated with lack of response.  These results suggest that sacituzumab plus pembrolizumab combination has promising activity in this setting, and tolerability, and along with other factors may potentially allow a bladder preservation approach in a substantial number of patients down the line. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yeah, agree with you, Neeraj. And the findings are very provocative and support completing the full trial enrollment and further exploration of this strategy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer in order to improve and provide further bladder-sparing strategies. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Agree. So, let's now turn to the kidney cancer, starting with Abstract 4505, the final overall analysis from CheckMate-214 trial, which evaluated nivolumab plus ipilimumab, so dual checkpoint inhibition strategy, versus sunitinib in our patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yeah, absolutely, Neeraj. So, the final 9-year analysis of the phase 3 CheckMate-214 trial confirms the long-term superiority of nivolumab and ipilimumab over sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced metastatic renal cell carcinoma. So, this has a median follow-up of 9 years. Overall survival remains significantly improved with the combination. So, in the ITT patient population, the intention-to-treat, the hazard ratio for overall survival was 0.71. So, this translates to a 29% reduction in the risk of death. 31% of patients were alive at this 108-month follow-up compared to 20% only in those who got sunitinib. So, similar benefits were observed in the intermediate- and poor-risk groups with a hazard ratio of 0.69, and 30% versus 19% survival at 108 months.  Importantly, a delayed benefit was also seen in those favorable-risk patients. So, the hazard ratio for overall survival improved from 1.45 in the initial report and now at 0.8 at 9 years follow-up, with 35% of patients alive at 108 months compared to 22% in those who got sunitinib. Progression-free survival also favored the nivo-ipi arm across all risk groups. At 96 months, the probability of remaining progression-free was about 23% compared to 9% in the sunitinib arm in the ITT patient population, 25% versus 9% in the intermediate- and poor-risk patients, and 13% compared to 11% in the favorable-risk patients. Importantly, at 96 months, 48% of patients in the nivo-ipi responders remained in response compared to just 19% in those who got sunitinib. And in the favorable-risk group, 36% of patients who responded remained in response, although data were not available for sunitinib in this subgroup.  So, this data reinforces the use of nivolumab and ipilimumab as a durable and effective first-line effective strategy for standard of care across all risk groups for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Jeanny. And of course, since ipi-nivo data were presented, several other novel ICI-TKI combinations have emerged. And I'm really hoping to see very similar data with TKI-ICI combinations down the line. It is really important to note that we are not seeing any new safety signals with the ICI combinations or ICI-based therapies, which is very reassuring given the extended exposure. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Absolutely agree with you there, Neeraj.  Now, going on and moving on to Abstract 4514, which is the KEYNOTE-564 trial, and they reported on the 5-year outcomes of adjuvant pembrolizumab in clear cell RCC in patients who are at high risk for recurrence. Can you tell us a little bit more about this abstract, Neeraj? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure. So, the KEYNOTE-564 trial established pembrolizumab monotherapy as the first adjuvant regimen to significantly improve both disease-free survival and overall survival compared to placebo after surgery for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma. So, Dr Naomi Haas presented the 5-year update from this landmark trial.  A total of 994 patients were randomized to receive either pembrolizumab or placebo. The median follow-up at the time of this analysis was approximately 70 months. Disease-free survival remained significantly improved with pembrolizumab. The median DFS was not reached with pembrolizumab compared to 68.3 months with placebo, with a hazard ratio of 0.71, translating to a 29% reduction in risk of recurrence. At 5 years, 60.9% of patients receiving pembrolizumab remained disease-free compared to 52.2% with placebo. Overall survival also favored pembrolizumab. The hazard ratio for OS was 0.66, translating to a 34% reduction in risk of death, with an estimated 5-year overall survival rate of 87.7% with pembrolizumab compared to 82.3% for placebo. Importantly, these benefits were consistent across all key subgroups, including patients with sarcomatoid features. In addition, no new serious treatment-related adverse events have been reported in the 3 years since treatment completion.  So, these long-term data confirm pembrolizumab as a durable and effective standard adjuvant therapy for patients with resected, high-risk clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you for that wonderful summary, Neeraj. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: That wraps up our kidney cancer highlights. Any closing thoughts, Jeanny, before we conclude? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: It's been so wonderful reviewing these abstracts with you, Neeraj. So, the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting showcased a lot of transformative data across GU cancers, from first-in-class bispecifics to long-term survival in RCC. And these findings are already shaping our clinical practices. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: I agree. And we have covered a broad spectrum of innovations in GU cancers with strong clinical relevance.  So, thank you, Jeanny, for joining me today and sharing your insights.  And thank you to our listeners for joining us. You will find links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. If you find these conversations valuable, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe to the ASCO Daily News Podcast wherever you listen. Thank you so much. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.  Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speakers:    Dr. Neeraj Agarwal     @neerajaiims     Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching   Follow ASCO on social media:       @ASCO on Twitter       ASCO on Bluesky   ASCO on Facebook       ASCO on LinkedIn       Disclosures:   Dr. Neeraj Agarwal:   Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Nektar, Lilly, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Foundation Medicine, Astellas Pharma, Lilly, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, AVEO, Calithera Biosciences, MEI Pharma, Genentech, Astellas Pharma, Foundation Medicine, and Gilead Sciences  Research Funding (Institution): Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Exelixis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Calithera Biosciences, Celldex, Eisai, Genentech, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck, Lilly, Nektar, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Crispr Therapeutics, Arvinas  Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching:   Honoraria: Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Astellas Scientific and Medical Affairs Inc., Pfizer/EMD Serono   Consulting or Advisory Role: Algeta/Bayer, Dendreon, AstraZeneca, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi, EMD Serono, MedImmune, Bayer, Merck, Seattle Genetics, Pfizer, Immunomedics, Amgen, AVEO, Pfizer/Myovant, Exelixis,    Speakers' Bureau: Astellas Pharma, Janssen-Ortho, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas/Seattle Genetics

Dr. Vamsi Velcheti and Dr. Nate Pennell discuss novel treatment approaches in small cell and non-small cell lung cancer that were featured at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Hello, I'm Dr. Vamsi Velcheti, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm a professor of medicine and chief of hematology and oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. The 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting featured some exciting advancements in small cell lung cancer, targeted therapies for non-small cell lung cancer, and other novel [treatment] approaches. Today, I'm delighted to be joined by Dr. Nate Pennell to discuss some of the key abstracts that are advancing the lung cancer field. Dr. Pennell is the co-director of the Cleveland Clinic Lung Cancer Program and also the vice chair of clinical research at the Taussig Cancer Institute. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Nate, it's great to have you back on the podcast. Thanks so much for being here. Dr. Nate Pennell: Thanks, Vamsi. Always a pleasure. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Let's get started, and I think the first abstract that really caught my attention was Abstract 8516, “The Randomized Trial of Relevance of Time of Day of Immunotherapy for Progression-Free and Overall Survival in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.” What are your thoughts about this, Nate? Dr. Nate Pennell: I agree. I thought this was one of the most discussed abstracts, certainly in the lung cancer session, but I think even outside of lung cancer, it got some discussion. So, just to put this in perspective, there have been a number of publications that have all been remarkably consistent, and not just in lung cancer but across multiple cancer types, that immunotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, are commonly used. And all of them have suggested, when looking at retrospective cohorts, that patients who receive immune checkpoint inhibitors earlier in the day – so in the morning or before the early afternoon – for whatever reason, appear to have better outcomes than those who get it later in the day, and this has been repeated. And I think many people just sort of assumed that this was some sort of strange association and that there was something fundamentally different from a prognostic standpoint in people who came in in the morning to get their treatment versus those who came later in the afternoon, and that was probably the explanation. The authors of this randomized trial actually decided to test this concept. And so, about 210 patients with previously untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer were randomly assigned to get chemo and immune checkpoint inhibitor – either pembrolizumab or sintilimab – and half of them were randomly assigned to get the treatment before 3 PM in the afternoon, and half of them were assigned to get it after 3 PM in the afternoon. And it almost completely recapitulated what was seen in the retrospective cohorts. So, the median progression-free survival in those who got earlier treatment was 13.2 months versus only 6.5 months in those who got it later in the day. So, really enormous difference with a hazard ratio of 0.43, which was statistically significant. And perhaps even more striking, the median overall survival was not reached in the early group versus 17.8 months in the late group with a hazard ratio of 0.43, also highly statistically significant. Even the response rate was 20% higher in the early patients; 75% response rate compared to 56% in the late-time-of-day patients. So very consistent across all measures of efficacy with pretty good matched characteristics across the different groups. And so, I have to tell you, I don't know what to make of this. I certainly was a skeptic about the retrospective series, but now we have a prospective randomized trial that shows essentially the same thing. So, maybe there is a difference between getting treated in the morning, although I have yet to hear someone give a very good mechanistic explanation as to why this would be. What were your thoughts on this? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: It's indeed fascinating, Nate, and I actually think this was a very interesting abstract. Really, I was caught off guard looking at the data. I mean, if it were a drug, we would be so excited, right? I mean, with those kind of survival benefits. I don't know. I think circadian rhythm probably has something to do with it, like different cytokine profiles at the time of administration. I mean, who knows? But I think it's a randomized trial, and I think I would expect to see a mad rush for treatment appointments early in the morning given this, and at least I want my patients to come in first thing in the morning. It'll be interesting to see. Dr. Nate Pennell: It's important to point out that in this study, everyone got chemo and immunotherapy. And, at least in our cancer center, most patients who are getting platinum-doublet chemotherapy and immunotherapy actually do get treated earlier in the day already, just because of the length of the infusion appointment that's needed. So it really is oftentimes people getting single-agent immunotherapy who are often getting the later, shorter visits. But if you have a choice, I think it would be very reasonable to have people treated earlier in the day. And I do think most of the impressions that I got from people about this is that they would like to see it reproduced but certainly well worth further investigation. And I personally would like to see more investigation into what the rationale would be for this because I still can't quite figure out, yes, if you got it at, say, you know, 5 PM, that's later in the day and I can understand that maybe your immune system is somewhat less receptive at that point than it would be in the morning. But because these checkpoint inhibitors have such long half-lives, it's still in your system the next morning when your immune system is supposedly more receptive. So I don't quite understand why that would be the case. Well, let's move on to the next study. I would like to hear your thoughts on Abstract 8515, “Plasma-Guided, Adaptive First-Line Chemoimmunotherapy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.” Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, this was another abstract that seems to be really interesting in my opinion. I think there's kind of a lot of emphasis lately on ctDNA and MRD-based assays to monitor disease. In the lung cancer space, we haven't had a lot of clinical trials looking at this prospectively, and this was one of those pilot studies where they looked at circulating free DNA (cfDNA)-based response-adaptive strategy for frontline patients who are PD-L1 positive. So, patients started with pembrolizumab monotherapy, and based on plasma molecular response after 2 cycles, those patients without response received early treatment intensification with a platinum doublet. So the approach essentially was to reduce the chemotherapy exposure in patients who respond to immunotherapy. And only about 17.5% of the patients on the trial received chemotherapy based on lack of molecular response. So, in this trial, what they found was patients with the cfDNA response had a markedly improved PFS of 16.4 months versus 4.8 months. So essentially, like, this is a really nice study to set a foundation on which we have to do larger studies to incorporate molecular markers trying to look at cfDNA response to inform treatment strategy, either escalation or de-escalation strategies. So, I thought it was a very interesting study. Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah. I mean, we always have this question for patients, “Should they get immunotherapy alone or combined with chemo?” and I think this certainly is intriguing, suggesting that there may be ways you can monitor people and perhaps rescue those that aren't going to respond to single agent. I'd like to see a randomized trial against, you know, this strategy, perhaps against everyone getting, say, chemoimmunotherapy or make sure that you're not potentially harming people by doing this strategy. But I agree, it's time to move beyond just observing that cell-free DNA is prognostic and important and start using it to actually guide treatment. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, and I would just caution though, like, you know, I think we need more data, but, however, it's certainly a very interesting piece of data to kind of help inform future trials. So, there was another abstract that caught my attention, and I think this would be a very interesting abstract in the EGFR space. Abstract 8506, "Patritumab Deruxtecan (HER3-DXd) in Resistant EGFR-Mutant Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients After Third-Generation EGFR TKI," it's the HERTHENA-Lung02 study. What do you think about the results of this study? Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah, this was, I would say, very widely anticipated and ultimately a little disappointing, despite being a positive trial. So, these are patients with EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer who have progressed after a third-generation EGFR TKI like osimertinib. This is really an area of major unmet need. We do have drugs like amivantamab in this space, but still definitely an area where essentially patients move from having a highly effective oral therapy to being in the realm of chemotherapy as their best option. So, this HER3 antibody-drug conjugate, patritumab deruxtecan, had some good single-arm data for this. And we're sort of hoping this would become an available option for patients. This trial was designed against platinum-doublet chemotherapy in this setting and with a primary endpoint of progression-free survival. And it actually was positive for improved progression-free survival compared to chemo with a hazard ratio of 0.77. But when you look at the medians, you can see that the median PFS was only 5.8 versus 5.4 months. It was really a modest difference between the two arms. And on the interim analysis, it appeared that there will not be a difference in overall survival between the two arms. In fact, the hazard ratio at the interim analysis was 0.98 for the two arms. So based on this, unfortunately, the company that developed the HER3-DXd has withdrawn their application to the FDA for approval of the drug, anticipating that they probably wouldn't get past approval without that overall survival endpoint. So, unfortunately, probably not, at least for the near future, going to be a new option for these patients. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I think this is a space that's clearly an unmet need, and this was a big disappointment, I should say. I think all of us were going into the meeting anticipating some change in the standard of care here. Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah, I agree. It was something that I was telling patients, honestly, that I was expecting this to be coming, and so now, definitely a bit of a disappointment. But it happens and, hopefully, it will still find perhaps a role or other drugs with a similar target. Certainly an active area. Well, let's leave the EGFR-mutant space and move into small cell. There were a couple of very impactful studies. And one of them was Abstract 8006, “Lurbinectedin Plus Atezolizumab as First-Line Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer, Primary Results from the Phase III IMforte Trial.” So, what was your impression of this? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I think this is definitely an interesting study, and small cell, I remember those days when we had barely any studies of small cell at ASCO, and now we have a lot of exciting developments in the small cell space. It's really good to see. The IMforte trial is essentially like a maintenance lurbinectedin trial with atezolizumab maintenance. And the study was a positive trial. The primary endpoint was a PFS, and the study showed improvement in both PFS and OS with the addition of lurbinectedin to atezolizumab maintenance. And definitely, it's a positive trial, met its primary endpoint, but I always am a little skeptical of adding maintenance cytotoxic therapies here in this setting. In my practice, and I'd like to hear your opinion, Nate, most patients with small cell after 4 cycles of a platinum doublet, they're kind of really beaten up. Adding more cytotoxic therapy in the maintenance space is going to be tough, I think, for a lot of patients. But also, most importantly, I think this rapidly evolving landscape for patients with small cell lung cancer with multiple new, exciting agents, actually like some FDA-approved like tarlatamab, also like a lot of these emerging therapeutics like I-DXd and other ADCs in this space. You kind of wonder, is it really optimal strategy to bring on like another cytotoxic agent right after induction chemotherapy, or do you kind of delay that? Or maybe have like a different strategy in terms of maintenance. I know that the tarlatamab maintenance trial is probably going to read out at some point too. I think it's a little challenging. The hazard ratio is also 0.73. As I said, it's a positive trial, but it's just incremental benefit of adding lurbi. And also on the trial, we need to also pay attention to the post-progression second-line treatments, number of patients who received tarlatamab or any other investigational agents.  So I think it's a lot of questions still. I'm not quite sure I'd be able to embrace this completely. I think a vast majority of my patients might not be eligible anyway for cytotoxic chemotherapy maintenance right away, but yeah, it's tough. Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah. I would call this a single and not a home run. It definitely is real. It was a real overall survival benefit. Certainly not surprising that a maintenance therapy would improve progression-free survival. We've known that for a long time in small cell, but first to really show an overall survival benefit. But I completely agree with you. I mean, many people are not going to want to continue further cytotoxics after 4 cycles of platinum-doublet chemo. So I would say, for those that are young and healthy and fly through chemo without a lot of toxicity, I think certainly something worth mentioning. The problem with small cell, of course, is that so many people get sick so quickly while on that observation period after first-line chemo that they don't make it to second-line treatment. And so, giving everyone maintenance therapy essentially ensures everyone gets that second-line treatment. But they also lose that potentially precious few months where they feel good and normal and are able to be off of treatment. So, I would say this is something where we're really going to have to kind of sit and have that shared decision-making visit with patients and decide what's meaningful to them. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I agree. The next abstract that was a Late-Breaking Abstract, 8000, “Overall Survival of Neoadjuvant Nivolumab Plus Chemotherapy in Patients With Resectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in CheckMate-816.” This was a highly anticipated read-out of the OS data from 816. What did you make of this abstract? Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah, I thought this was great. Of course, CheckMate-816 changed practice a number of years ago when it first reported out. So, this was the first of the neoadjuvant or perioperative chemoimmunotherapy studies in resectable non-small cell lung cancer. So, just to review, this was a phase 3 study for patients with what we would now consider stage II or stage IIIA resectable non-small cell lung cancer. And they received three cycles of either chemotherapy or chemotherapy plus nivolumab, and that was it. That was the whole treatment. No adjuvant treatment was given afterwards. They went to resection. And patients who received the chemoimmunotherapy had a much higher pathologic complete response rate and a much better event-free survival. And based on this, this regimen was approved and, I think, at least in the United States, widely adopted.  Now, since the first presentation of CheckMate 816, there have been a number of perioperative studies that have included an adjuvant component of immunotherapy – KEYNOTE-671, the AEGEAN study – and these also have shown improved outcomes. The KEYNOTE study with pembrolizumab also with an overall survival benefit. And I think people forgot a little bit about CheckMate-816. So, this was the 5-year overall survival final analysis. And it did show a statistically and, I think, clinically meaningful difference in overall survival with the 3 cycles of neoadjuvant chemo-nivo compared to chemo with a hazard ratio of 0.72. The 5-year overall survival of 65% in the chemo-IO group versus 55% with the chemo alone. So a meaningful improvement. And interestingly, that hazard ratio of 0.72 is very similar to what was seen in the peri-operative pembro study that included the adjuvant component. So, very much still relevant for people who think that perhaps the value of those neoadjuvant treatments might be really where most of the impact comes from this type of approach. They also gave us an update on those with pathologic complete response, showing really astronomically good outcomes. If you have a pathologic complete response, which was more than a quarter of patients, the long-term survival was just phenomenal. I mean, 95% alive at 5 years if they were in that group and suggesting that in those patients at least, the adjuvant treatment may not be all that important.  So, I think this was an exciting update and still leaves very much the open question about the importance of continuing immunotherapy after surgery after the neoadjuvant component. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I completely agree, Nate. I think the million-dollar question is: “Is there like a population of patients who don't have complete response but like maybe close to complete response?” So, would you like still consider stopping adjuvant IO? I probably would not be comfortable, but I think sometimes, you know, we all have patients who are like very apprehensive of continuing treatments. So, I think that we really need more studies, especially for those patients who don't achieve a complete CR. I think trying to find strategies for like de-escalation based on MRD or other risk factors. But we need more trials in that space to inform not just de-escalation, but there are some patients who don't respond at all to a neoadjuvant IO. So, there may be an opportunity for escalating adjuvant therapies. So, it is an interesting space to watch out for. Dr. Nate Pennell: No, absolutely. Moving to KRAS-mutant space, so our very common situation in patients with non-small cell lung cancer, we had the results of Abstract 8500, “First-Line Adagrasib With Pembrolizumab in Patients With Advanced or Metastatic KRASG12C-Mutated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer” from the phase 2 portion of the KRYSTAL-7 study. Why was this an interesting and important study? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: First of all, there were attempts to kind of combine KRASG12C inhibitors in the past with immune checkpoint inhibitors, notably sotorasib with pembrolizumab. Unfortunately, those trials have led to like a lot of toxicity, with increased especially liver toxicity, which was a major issue. This is a phase 2 study of adagrasib in combination with pembrolizumab, and this is a study in the frontline setting in patients with the G12C-mutant metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. And across all the PD-L1 groups, the ORR was 44%, and the median PFS was 11 months, comparable to the previous data that we have seen with adagrasib in this setting. So it's not like a major improvement in clinical efficacy. However, I think the toxicity profile that we were seeing was slightly better than the previous trials in combination with sotorasib, but you still have a fair amount of transaminitis even in the study. At this point, this is not ready for clinical primetime. I don't think we should be using sotorasib or adagrasib in the frontline or even in the second line in combination with checkpoint inhibitors. Combining these drugs with checkpoint inhibitors in the clinical practice might lead to adverse outcomes. So, we need to wait for more data like newer-generation G12C inhibitors which are also being studied in combination, so we'll have to kind of wait for more data to emerge in this space. Dr. Nate Pennell: I agree, this is not immediately practice changing. This is really an attempt to try to combine targeted treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitor. And I agree with you that, you know, it does appear to be perhaps a little bit better tolerated than some of the prior combinations that have tried in this space. The outcomes overall were not that impressive, although in the PD-L1 greater than 50%, it did have a better response rate perhaps than you would expect with either drug alone. And I do think that the company is focusing on that population for a future randomized trial, which certainly would inform this question better. But in the meantime, I agree with you, there's a lot of newer drugs that are coming along that potentially may be more active and better tolerated. And so, I'd say for now, interesting but we'll wait and see. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, so now moving back again to small cell. So, there was a Late-Breaking Abstract, 8008. This is a study of tarlatamab versus chemotherapy as second-line treatment for small cell lung cancer. They presented the primary analysis of the phase III DeLLphi-304 study. What do you think about this? Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah, I thought this was really exciting. This was, I would say, perhaps the most important lung study that was presented. Tarlatamab is, of course, the anti-DLL3 bispecific T-cell engager compound, which is already FDA approved based on a prior single-arm phase II study, which showed a very nice response rate as a single agent in previously treated small cell lung cancer and relatively manageable side effects, although somewhat unique to solid tumor docs in the use of these bispecific drugs in things like cytokine release syndrome and ICANS, the neurologic toxicities. So, this trial was important because tarlatamab was approved, but there were also other chemotherapy drugs approved in the previously treated space. And so, this was a head-to-head second-line competition comparison between tarlatamab and either topotecan, lurbinectedin, or amrubicin in previously treated small cell patients with a primary endpoint of overall survival. So, a very well-designed trial. And it did show, I think, a very impressive improvement in overall survival with a median overall survival in the tarlatamab group of 13.6 months compared to 8.3 months with chemotherapy, hazard ratio of 0.6. And progression-free survival was also longer at 4.2 months versus 3.2 months, hazard ratio of 0.72. In addition to showing improvements in cancer-related symptoms that were improved in tarlatamab compared to chemotherapy, there was actually also significantly lower rates of serious treatment-related adverse events with tarlatamab compared to chemotherapy. So, you do still see the cytokine release syndrome, which is seen in most people but is manageable because these patients are admitted to the hospital for the first two cycles, as well as a significant number of patients with neurologic side effects, the so-called ICANS, which also can be treated with steroids. And so, I think based upon the very significant improvement in outcomes, I would expect that this should become our kind of standard second-line treatment since it seems to be much better than chemo. However, tarlatamab is definitely a new drug that a lot of places are not used to using, and I think a lot of cancer centers, especially ones that aren't tied to a hospital, may have questions about how to deal with the CRS. So, I'm curious your thoughts on that. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, thank you, Nate. And I completely agree. I think the data looked really promising, and I've already been using tarlatamab in the second-line space. The durability of response and overall, having used tarlatamab quite a bit - like, I participated in some of the early trials and also used it as standard of care - tarlatamab has unique challenges in terms of like need for hospitalization for monitoring for the first few treatments and make sure, you know, we monitor those patients for CRS and ICANS. But once you get past that initial administration and monitoring of CRS, these patients have a much better quality of life, they're off chemotherapy, and I think it's really about the logistics of actually administering tarlatamab and coordination with the hospital and administration in the outpatient setting. It's definitely challenging, but I think it definitely can be done and should be done given what we are seeing in terms of clinical efficacy here. Dr. Nate Pennell: I agree. I think hospital systems now are just going to have to find a way to be able to get this on formulary and use it because it clearly seems to be more effective and generally better tolerated by patients. So, should move forward, I think. Finally, there's an abstract I wanted to ask you about, Abstract 8001, which is the “Neoadjuvant osimertinib with or without chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in resectable epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated non-small cell lung cancer: The NeoADAURA Study”. And this is one that I think was also fairly highly anticipated. So, what are your thoughts? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: You know, I wasn't probably surprised with the results, and I believe we were all expecting a positive trial, and we certainly were handed a positive trial here. It's a phase III trial of osimertinib and chemotherapy or osimertinib in the neoadjuvant space followed by surgery, followed by osimertinib. It's a global phase 3 trial and very well conducted, and patients with stage II to stage IIIB were enrolled in the study. And in the trial, patients who had a neoadjuvant osimertinib with or without chemotherapy showed a significant improvement in major pathologic response rates over chemotherapy alone. And the EFS was also positive for osimertinib and chemotherapy, osimertinib monotherapy as well compared to chemotherapy alone. So overall, the study met its primary endpoint, and I think it sheds light on how we manage our patients with early-stage lung cancer. I think osimertinib, we know that osimertinib is already FDA approved in the adjuvant space, but what we didn't really know is how was osimertinib going to work in the neoadjuvant space. And there are always situations, especially for stage III patients, where we are on the fence about, are these patients already close to being metastatic? They have, like, almost all these patients have micrometastatic disease, even if they have stage III. As we saw in the LAURA data, when you look at the control arm, it was like a very short PFS. Chemoradiation does nothing for those patients, and I think these patients have systemic mets, either gross or micrometastatic disease at onset. So, it's really important to incorporate osimertinib early in the treatment course. And I think, especially for the locally advanced patients, I think it's even more important to kind of incorporate osimertinib in the neoadjuvant space and get effective local control with surgery and treat them with adjuvant. I'm curious to hear your thoughts, Nate. Dr. Nate Pennell: I am a believer and have long been a believer in targeted adjuvant treatments, and, you know, it has always bothered me somewhat that we're using our far and away most effective systemic therapy; we wait until after they go through all their pre-op treatments, they go through surgery, then they go through chemotherapy, and then finally months later, they get their osimertinib, and it still clearly improves survival in the adjuvant setting. Why not just start the osimertinib as soon as you know that the patient has EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer, and then you can move on to surgery and adjuvant treatment afterwards? And I think what was remarkable about this study is that all of these patients almost - 90% in each arm - went to surgery. So, you weren't harming them with the neoadjuvant treatment. And clearly better major pathologic response, nodal downstaging, event-free survival was better. But I don't know that this trial is ever going to show an overall survival difference between neoadjuvant versus just surgery and adjuvant treatment, given how effective the drug is in the adjuvant setting. Nonetheless, I think the data is compelling enough to consider this, certainly for our N2-positive, stage IIIA patients or a IIIB who might be otherwise surgical candidates. I think based on this, I would certainly consider that. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, and especially for EGFR, like even for stage IIIB patients, in the light of the LAURA study, those patients who do not do too well with chemoradiation. So you're kind of delaying effective systemic therapy, as you said, waiting for the chemoradiation to finish. So I think probably time to revisit how we kind of manage these locally advanced EGFR patients. Dr. Nate Pennell: Yep, I agree. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Nate, thank you so much for sharing your fantastic insights today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. It's been an exciting ASCO again. You know, we've seen a lot of positive trials impacting our care of non-small cell lung cancer and small cell lung cancer patients. Dr. Nate Pennell: Thanks for inviting me, Vamsi. Always a pleasure to discuss these with you. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: And thanks to our listeners for your time today. You will find links to all of the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of the episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear from the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, subscribe wherever you get your podcast. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. More on today's speakers:    Dr. Vamsi Velcheti   @VamsiVelcheti    Dr. Nathan Pennell   @n8pennell   Follow ASCO on social media:     @ASCO on Twitter     ASCO on Facebook     ASCO on LinkedIn   ASCO on BlueSky   Disclosures:   Dr. Vamsi Velcheti:   Honoraria: ITeos Therapeutics   Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Foundation Medicine, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Novartis, Lilly, EMD Serono, GSK, Amgen, Elevation Oncology, Taiho Oncology, Merus   Research Funding (Inst.): Genentech, Trovagene, Eisai, OncoPlex Diagnostics, Alkermes, NantOmics, Genoptix, Altor BioScience, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Atreca, Heat Biologics, Leap Therapeutics, RSIP Vision, GlaxoSmithKline   Dr. Nathan Pennell:     Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Cota Healthcare, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Viosera, Xencor, Mirati Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Sanofi/Regeneron    Research Funding (Inst): Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, Loxo, Altor BioScience, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Jounce Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Heat Biologics, WindMIL, Sanofi 

Dr. Shaalan Beg and Dr. Kristen Ciombor discuss practice-changing studies in GI cancers and other novel treatment approaches that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Transcript Dr. Shaalan Beg: Hello, I'm Dr. Shaalan Beg, welcoming you to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm a medical oncologist and an adjunct associate professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas. There were some remarkable advances in gastrointestinal cancers that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, and I'm delighted to be joined by Dr. Kristen Ciombor to discuss some exciting GI data. Dr. Ciombor is the Ingram Associate Professor of Cancer Research and a co-leader of Translational Research and the Interventional Oncology Research Program at the Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Ciombor, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Thanks, Dr Beg. It's great to be here. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Alright, let's kick it off. Big year for GI cancers. We'll start off with LBA1. This was the ATOMIC study sponsored by NCI and the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) and the Alliance group. This is a randomized study of standard chemotherapy alone or combined with atezolizumab as adjuvant therapy for stage III mismatch repair deficient colorectal cancer. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: I think this study was really definitely practice-changing, as you can tell because it was a Plenary. But I do have some concerns in terms of how we're actually going to implement this and whether this is the final answer in this disease subtype. So, as you said, the patients were enrolled with stage III resected mismatch repair deficient colon cancer, and then they were randomized to either modified FOLFOX6 with or without atezolizumab. And that's where it starts to become interesting because not many of us give FOLFOX for 6 months like was done in this study. Obviously, the study was done over many years, so that was part of that answer, but also the patients received atezolizumab for a total of 12 months. So the question, I think, that comes from this abstract is, is this practical and is this the final answer? I do think that this is practice-changing, and I will be talking to my patients with resected mismatch repair deficient colon cancer about FOLFOX plus atezolizumab. I think the big question is, do these patients need chemotherapy? And can we do a neoadjuvant approach instead? And that's where we don't have all the answers yet. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, but it has been great to see immunotherapy make its way into the adjuvant space after having made such a big impact in the metastatic space, but still some unanswered questions in terms of the need for chemotherapy and then the duration of therapy, which I guess we'll have to stay tuned in for the next couple of years to to get a lot of those questions answered. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah, but a big congratulations to the study team, to the NCTN, the NCI. I mean, this is really a great example of federally funded research that needs to continue. So, great job by the study team. The DFS 10% difference is really very large and certainly a practice-changing study. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, and and sticking with colon cancer, and and this another federally funded study, but this time funded by a Canadian cancer clinical trials group was LBA3510. This is the CHALLENGE study. It's a randomized phase 3 trial of the impact of a structured exercise program on disease-free survival for stage III or high-risk stage II colon cancer. This study got a lot of buzz, a lot of mainstream press coverage, and a lot of discussions on what that means for us for the patients who we're going to be seeing next week in our clinic. What was your takeaway? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah, this is a really interesting study, and I was so glad to see it presented because this partially answers one of the questions that patients always have for us in clinic, right? You know, once they've completed their standard chemotherapy and surgery, what else can they do to help prevent recurrence? And so we've always known and sort of extrapolated that healthy lifestyle habits are good, but now we have data, particularly in these patients. Most of them were stage III colon cancer patients, those had high-risk stage II cancer. And basically, the goal was to increase their physical activity by at least 10 MET hours per week. So, my big question, of course, as I came into this presentation was, “Okay, what does that mean exactly? How does that translate to real life?” And really what the author presented and explained was that basically most patients could hit their target by adding a 45- to 60-minute brisk walk 3 to 4 times a week. So I think this is very approachable.  Now, in the confines of the study, this was a structured exercise program, so it wasn't just patients doing this on their own. But I do think kind of extrapolating from that, that this is very achievable for most patients. And not only did this prevent recurrence of their prior cancer, but actually the rate of new primary cancer diagnoses, was less, which is really interesting, especially in the breast and prostate cancer. So this was a really interesting, and I think practice-changing study as well, especially given that this is something that most patients can do. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, and there was a lot of discussion in the hallways after the presentation in terms of how this really changes our existing practice because most folks already recommend exercise as a way for improving outcomes in cancer patients. So we've already been doing that. Now we have some data on how much it can impact the benefit. But there was some discussion about what the actual degree of impact was. There was a drop-off rate in terms of how long folks were able to stick with this exercise regimen. But you've seen this in clinic when someone have their surgery, they have their chemotherapy, they've been so intimately involved with the oncology world, with the oncology practice, and they somehow feel that they're being let loose into this mean, angry world without any guidance and they're looking for something to do. “What more can I do in terms of my lifestyle?” And then here we have very solid data, as solid as can be for an intervention like exercise, showing that there is an impact and you can give a prescription for exercise when someone wraps up their chemotherapy for colon cancer, thanks to the study. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah. It was a great study. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Moving to gastroesophageal cancer, another late-breaking abstract. This is LBA5. The MATTERHORN trial was a phase 3 trial of durvalumab plus FLOT for resectable GE junction and gastric cancer. And again, another area where immunotherapy has made an impact, and here we're seeing it move closer for earlier-stage disease. What was your take-home for the MATTERHORN trial? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah, so this study looked at neoadjuvant perioperative durvalumab plus our current standard chemotherapy of FLOT versus placebo plus FLOT. And this was a large study, almost 1,000 patients were randomized. And the primary endpoint was event-free survival, and it was definitely met in favor of the D + FLOT arm, as Dr. Klempner discussed after Dr Janjigian's presentation. I do think there are still some unanswered questions here. Overall survival is not yet mature, so we do have to wait and see how that shakes out. But it's very interesting and kind of is reflective of what, as you said, we're looking at earlier and earlier lines of therapy, particularly with immunotherapy, in these GI cancer spaces. So it makes a lot of sense to test this and and to look at this. So the toxicity was pretty similar to what we would expect. Primary endpoint was met, but again, we'll have to wait and see what the survival data looks like. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, and in oncology, we know, especially for treatment that does add additional cost, it does add additional potential toxicity that we want to see that overall survival nudged. I did see some polls on social media asking folks whether their practices changed from this, and I think the results were favoring adding durvalumab for this group of patients but understanding that there are caveats to the addition of treatments and the eventual FDA approval in that indication as well. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Exactly. I completely agree with that. Dr. Shaalan Beg: All right. How about we stick with gastroesophageal cancer? LBA4002 was trastuzumab deruxtecan versus ramucirumab plus paclitaxel for second-line treatment in HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic gastric cancer or GE junction cancer. This was the DESTINY-Gastric04 study. And again, antibody-drug conjugates making a big impact across different diseases. And here we have more data in the HER2-positive gastric cancer space. Your thoughts on this study? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah, so this is a really important space in gastroesophageal cancer because the HER2 positivity rate is fairly high as compared to some of our other tumor types. So, I do think one of the important things was that patients did have biopsy confirmation of HER2 status, which was very important, and then they were randomized to either T-DXd versus the kind of second-line standard of ramucirumab-paclitaxel. So this was a great practical study and really answers a question that we had for a while in terms of does anti-HER2 therapy in the second-line really impact and improve survival. So we did see a statistically significant improvement favoring T-DXd. I do think it's always important to look at toxicity, though, too. And there was about almost 14% rate of interstitial lung disease, which of course is the most feared toxicity from some of these antibody-drug conjugates, especially T-DXd. So I do think it's important to keep that in mind, but this is definitely a great addition to the armamentarium for these HER2-positive patients. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And pancreas cancer was on the stage after a very long time with a positive clinical trial. This is Abstract 4006. These were preliminary results from a phase 2 study of elraglusib in combination with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel alone for previously untreated metastatic pancreas cancer. This is a frontline clinical trial of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel plus/minus the study drug. There were other cohorts in this study as well, but they reported the results of their part 3B arm. And great to see some activity in the pancreas space. And your thoughts? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah, we definitely need better treatments in pancreas cancer. This was a very welcome presentation to see. The elraglusib is an inhibitor of GSK-3beta, and it's thought that that mediates drug resistance and EMT. And so this is, I think, a perfect setting to test this drug. So patients basically were randomized. Patients with metastatic pancreas cancer were randomized 2: 1 to gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel plus or minus this elraglusib. So, what we saw was that overall survival was better with the addition of this new drug. And overall, not only the 1-year overall survival, but also median overall survival.  The thing that was interesting, though, was that we saw that the overall survival rates were 9.3 months with the combination versus 7.2 months with just gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel. And that's a little bit lower than we've seen in other studies. So, not sure what was going on there. Was it the patients that were a bit sicker? Was it a patient selection, you know, thing? I'm not really sure how to explain that so much. Also, the toxicity profile was much higher in terms of visual impairment, with over 60% of patients being treated with the combination versus 9% with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel. So these were mild, grade 1 and 2, but still something to be cautious about. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And especially with this being a phase 2 trial, making sure that in a larger study we're able to better evaluate the toxicity and see if the control arm in the larger confirmatory study performs differently will be really important before this compound makes it to the clinic in our space. But very exciting to see these kinds of results for pancreas adenocarcinoma. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah. Dr. Shaalan Beg: We've talked, it seems, a couple of times on this podcast about the BREAKWATER clinical trial. We did hear PFS and updated OS data, updated overall survival data on first-line encorafenib plus cetuximab plus modified FOLFOX6 for BRAF-mutated colorectal cancer. This was LBA3500. And eagerly anticipated results – we have all previously heard the progression-free survival results – but here we heard updated overall survival results, and very well-received study it seemed from the audience that time. So what are your takeaways on the updated results for BREAKWATER? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: In my opinion, this was one of the most practice-confirming studies. As you mentioned, we've already seen some of the preliminary data of BREAKWATER at prior meetings. But really what was particularly impactful for me was the median overall survival with the BREAKWATER regimen. So, again, patients received FOLFOX, encorafenib cetuximab in the first line if they had BRAF-mutated V600E-mutated colorectal cancer. And the median PFS was 12.8 months, which was actually really remarkable in this traditionally very aggressive, poor prognosis subtype of tumors. So, by seeing a median overall survival of 30.3 months was just incredible, in my opinion. Just a few years ago, that was considered the median overall survival for all comers for metastatic colorectal cancer. And we know the median overall survival was more in the less than 12 months range for BRAF. So this was incredibly impactful, and I think should be absolutely practice-changing for anyone who is eligible for this regimen.  I think again, where the practice meets the study is what's kind of important to think about too, how long did patients get FOLFOX, and certainly it adds toxicity to add a BRAF-targeted regimen on top of FOLFOX already. So, one of the other interesting things about the study, though, was that even though it didn't complete treatment, they actually did look at encorafenib/cetuximab alone and in the first line without chemotherapy. And those preliminary results actually looked okay, especially for patients who might not be able to tolerate chemotherapy, which we certainly see in practice. So, overall, definitely more data. And I agree that it's certainly practice-changing. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And it completely, as you mentioned, changes the outlook for a person who's diagnosed with BRAF-mutated metastatic colon cancer today versus even 7 or 8 years ago. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: And we're seeing this over and over in other subtypes too, but how you choose to treat the patient up front really matters. So really giving the right regimen up front is the key here. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And along the same lines, Abstract 3501 wanted to answer the question on whether people with MSI-high metastatic colorectal cancer need double checkpoint inhibitor therapy or is single therapy enough. So this [CheckMate-8HW] study compared nivo plus ipi with nivo alone, nivo monotherapy for MSI-high metastatic colorectal cancer. And we've known that both of these are fairly active regimens, but we also know the chance of immune-related adverse events is significantly higher with combination therapy. So this was a much-needed study for this group of patients. And what were your takeaways here? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: This, of course, has been really nivo-ipi in the first-line MSI-high metastatic colorectal cancer is now a standard of care. And not everybody is eligible for it, and there could be reasons, toxicity reasons, and other things too. But as we've been seeing for the last couple of years, immunotherapy clearly beats chemo in this space. And now looking at doublet versus single immunotherapy treatment in the first line, I think really nivo-ipi does beat out monotherapy. I will say, however, there is a caveat in that we still haven't seen the nivo-ipi versus nivo in the first line. So what has been presented thus far has been across all lines of therapy, and that does muddy the waters a little bit. So definitely looking forward and and we've asked this many times and based on the statistical plan and and what not, you know, we just haven't seen that data yet. But I do think it's becoming increasingly important to consider doublet immunotherapy for these patients as long as there are no contraindications. With the again, with the caveat that we have to have these toxicity discussions in the clinic with patients because many patients can tolerate it, you know, this regimen fairly well, but there can be very severe toxicities. So, I think an informed discussion should really be had with each patient before moving forward. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, informed decision, making them aware of the potential of real significant toxicities, immune-related toxicities with double therapy. But I am curious in your practice, how often do you see people choosing doublet therapy as frontline? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: So patients are really savvy, and a lot of times they've heard this data before or have come across it in patient advocacy groups and other things, and it's really nice to be able to have that conversation of the risk versus benefit. So I will say not all of my patients choose doublet, and many of them are still cured with immunotherapy monotherapy. So the big question there is, will we ever understand who actually needs the doublet versus who can still be cured or have very good long-term outcomes with just the single agent? And that has not been answered yet. Dr. Shaalan Beg: What a great point. So the last abstract I was hoping we could talk about is POD1UM-303 or the INTERAACT2 subgroup analysis and impact of delayed retifanlimab treatment for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal. What were your thoughts here? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: This was a study, actually we saw at ESMO, we saw the primary data at ESMO last year, and this was an update with some exploratory analyses. But this was really an important study because once again, we're looking at immunotherapy in later lines of therapy. That's how we started looking at and investigating immunotherapy, and now we're moving it up and up in the treatment course. So this was a study of carboplatin/paclitaxel plus or minus retifanlimab. Actually it was retifanlimab versus placebo. And it was a positive study, as we heard last year. This actually led to FDA approval of this regimen last month, just before ASCO, and it has now been incorporated in the NCCN guidelines as the preferred first-line option.  So what I thought was important from the additional data presented at ASCO was looking at the different subgroups, it did not appear that patients with liver mets or not had different outcomes. So that was really good to see because sometimes in colon cancer we see that immunotherapy doesn't work as well when patients have liver mets. And interestingly, because we use immunotherapy in anal cancer without any biomarkers, unlike with colon cancer or some of the other tumor types, also the authors looked at PD-L1 status, and it did look like maybe patients did a little bit better if they had higher PD-L1 expression, but patients still could benefit even if they were PD-L1 negative. So that was important, I think, and we will continue to see further data come out from this study. I want to mention also that EA2176 just completed accrual, so that was carbo-taxol plus or minus nivolumab. And so we should be seeing that data sometime soon, which will hopefully also confirm the ongoing role for immunotherapy in the first-line setting for anal cancer. Dr. Shaalan Beg: That was a fantastic review. Thank you, Dr Ciombor. Thanks for sharing your valuable insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Thanks for having me here. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You will find links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. And if you value the insights that you hear on the podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe, wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. More on today's speakers:   Dr. Shaalan Beg  @ShaalanBeg  Dr. Kristen Ciombor @KristenCiombor Follow ASCO on social media:    @ASCO on Twitter   @ASCO on BlueSky  ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn    Disclosures:   Dr. Shaalan Beg:   Consulting or Advisory Role: Ipsen, Cancer Commons, Foundation Medicine, Science37, Nant Health, Lindus Health Speakers' Bureau: Sirtex Research Funding (Inst.): Delfi Diagnostics, Universal Diagnostics, Freenome Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Incyte, Exelixis, Bayer, ALX Oncology, Tempus, Agenus, Taiho Oncology, Merck, BeiGene Research Funding (Inst.): Pfizer, Boston Biomedical, MedImmune, Onyx, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Incyte, Amgen, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Array BioPharma, Incyte, Daiichi Sankyo, Nucana, Abbvie, Merck, Pfizer/Calthera, Genentech, Seagen, Syndax Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Incyte, Tempus

Dr. Allison Zibelli and Dr. Rebecca Shatsky discuss advances in breast cancer research that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including a potential new standard of care for HER2+ breast cancer, the future of ER+ breast cancer management, and innovations in triple negative breast cancer therapy. Transcript Dr. Allison Zibelli: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Allison Zibelli, your guest host of the podcast today. I'm an associate professor of medicine and a breast medical oncologist at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Jefferson Health. There was a substantial amount of exciting breast cancer data presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, and I'm delighted to be joined by Dr. Rebecca Shatsky today to discuss some of these key advancements. Dr. Shatsky is an associate professor of medicine at UC San Diego and the head of breast medical oncology at the UC San Diego Health Moores Cancer Center, where she also serves as the director of the Breast Cancer Clinical Trials Program and the Inflammatory and Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Program.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Shatsky, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Thanks, Dr. Zibelli. It's wonderful to be here. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, we're starting with DESTINY-Breast09, which was trastuzumab deruxtecan and pertuzumab versus our more standard regimen of taxane, trastuzumab pertuzumab for first-line treatment of metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. Could you tell us a little bit about the study? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, absolutely. So, this was a long-awaited study. When T-DXd, or trastuzumab deruxtecan, really hit the market, a lot of these DESTINY-Breast trials were started around the same time. Now, this was a global, randomized, phase 3 study presented by Dr. Sara Tolaney from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute of Harvard in Boston. It was assessing essentially T-DXd in the first-line setting for metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer in addition to pertuzumab. And that was randomized against our standard-of-care regimen, which was established over a decade ago by the CLEOPATRA trial, and we've all been using that internationally for at least the past 10 years. So, this was a large trial, and it was one-to-one-to-one of patients getting T-DXd plus pertuzumab, T-DXd alone, or THP, which mostly is used as docetaxel and trastuzumab and pertuzumab every three weeks for six cycles. And this was in over 1,000 patients; it was 1,159 patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. This was a very interesting trial. It was looking at the use of trastuzumab deruxtecan, but patients were started on this treatment for their first-line metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer with no end date to their T-DXd. So, it was, you know, you were started on T-DXd every 3 weeks until progression. Now, CLEOPATRA is a little bit different than that, though, as we know. So, CLEOPATRA has a taxane plus trastuzumab and pertuzumab. But generally, patients drop the taxane after about six to seven cycles because, as we know, you can't be really on a taxane indefinitely. You get pretty substantial neuropathy as well as cytopenias, other things that end up happening. And so, in general, that regimen has sort of a limited time course for its chemotherapy portion, and the patients maintained after the taxane is dropped on their trastuzumab and their pertuzumab, plus or minus endocrine therapy if the investigator so desires. And the primary endpoint of the trial was progression-free survival by blinded, independent central review (BICR) in the intent-to-treat population. And then it had its other endpoints as overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, objective response rates, and duration of response, and of course, safety. As far as the results of this trial, so, I think that most of us key opinion leaders in breast oncology were expecting that this was going to be a positive trial. And it surely was. I mean, this is a really, really active drug, especially in HER2-positive disease, of course. So, the DESTINY-Breast03 data really established that, that this is a very effective treatment in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. And this trial really, again, showed that. So, there were 383 patients that ended up on the trastuzumab plus deruxtecan plus pertuzumab arm, and 387 got THP, the CLEOPATRA regimen. What was really interesting also to note of this before I go on to the results was that 52% of patients on this trial had de novo metastatic disease. And that's pretty unusual for any kind of metastatic breast cancer trial. It kind of shows you, though, just how aggressive this disease is, that a lot of patients, they present with de novo metastatic disease. It's also reflecting the global nature of this trial where maybe the screening efforts are a little bit less than maybe in the United States, and more patients are presenting as later stage because to have a metastatic breast cancer trial in the United States with 52% de novo metastatic disease doesn't usually happen. But regardless, the disease characteristics were pretty well matched between the two groups. 54% of the patients were triple positive, or you could say hormone-positive because whether they were PR positive or ER positive and PR negative doesn't really matter in this disease. And so, the interim data cutoff was February of this year, of 2025. So, the follow-up so far has been about 29 months, so the data is still really immature, only 38% mature for progression-free survival interim analysis. But what we saw is that T-DXd plus pertuzumab, it really improved progression-free survival. It had a hazard ratio that was pretty phenomenal at 0.56 with a confidence interval that was pretty narrow of 0.44 to 0.71. So, very highly statistically significant data here. The progression-free survival was consistent across all subgroups. Overall survival, very much immature at this time, but of course, the trend is towards an overall survival benefit for the T-DXd group. The median durable response with T-DXd plus pertuzumab exceeded 3 years. Now, importantly, though, I want to stress this, is grade 3 or above treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in both subgroups pretty equally. But there were 2 deaths in the T-DXd group due to interstitial lung disease. And there was a 12.1% adjudicated drug-induced interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis event rate in the T-DXd group and only 1%, and it was grade 1-2, in the THP group. So, that's really the caveat of this therapy, is we know that a percentage of patients are going to get interstitial lung disease, and that some may have very serious adverse events from it. So, that's always something I keep in the back of my mind when I treat patients with T-DXd. And so, overall, the conclusions of the trial were pretty much a slam dunk. T-DXd plus pertuzumab, it had a highly statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival versus the CLEOPATRA regimen. And that was across all subgroups for first-line metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer here. And so, yeah, the data was pretty impressive. Just to go into the overall response rate, because that's always super important as well, you had 85.1% of patients having a confirmed overall RECIST response rate in the T-DXd plus pertuzumab group and a 78.6 in the CLEOPATRA group. The complete CR rate, complete response was 15.1% in the T-DXd group and 8.5 in the CLEOPATRA regimen. And it was really an effective regimen in this group, of course. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, the investigators say at the end of their abstract that this is the new standard of care. Would you agree with that statement? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, that was a bold statement to make because I would say in the United States, not necessarily at the moment because the quality of life here, you have to think really hard about. Because one thing that's really important about the DESTINY-Breast09 data is that this was very much an international trial, and in many of the countries where patients enrolled on this, they were not able to access T-DXd off trial. And so, for them, this means T-DXd now or potentially never. And so, that is a really big difference whereas internationally, that may mean standard of care. However, in the US, patients have no issues accessing T-DXd in the second- or third-line settings. And right now, it's the standard of care in the second line in the United States, with all patients basically getting this second-line therapy except for some unique patients where they may be doing a PATINA trial regimen, which we saw at San Antonio Breast Cancer in 2024 of the triple-positive patients getting hormonal therapy plus palbociclib, which had a really great durable response. That was super impressive as well. Or there is the patient that the investigator can pick KADCYLA because the patient really wants to preserve their hair or maybe it's more indolent disease. But the quality of life on T-DXd indefinitely in the first-line setting is a big deal because, again, that CLEOPATRA regimen allows patients to drop their chemotherapy component about five to six months in. And with this, you're on a drug that feels very chemo-heavy indefinitely. And so, I think there's a lot more to investigate as far as what we're going to do with this data in the United States because it's a lot to commit a patient in the first-line metastatic setting. These de novo metastatic patients, some of them may be cured, honestly, on the HER2-targeting regimen. That's something we see these days. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, very interesting trial. I'm sure we'll be talking about this for a long time.  So, let's move on to SERENA-6, which was, I thought, a very interesting trial. This trial took patients with ER positive, advanced breast cancer after six months on an AI (aromatase inhibitor) and a CDK4/6 inhibitor. They did ctDNA every two to three months, and when they saw an ESR1 mutation emerge, they changed half of the patients to camizestrant plus CDK4/6 and kept the other half on the AI plus CDK4/6. Can you talk about that trial a little bit, please? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, so this was a big trial at ASCO25. This was presented as a Plenary Session. So, this was camizestrant plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and it could have been any of the three, so palbo, ribo, or abemaciclib in the first-line metastatic hormone-positive population, and patients were on an AI with that. They were, interestingly, tested by ctDNA at baseline to see if they had an ESR1 mutation. So, that was an interesting feature of this trial. But patients had to have already been on their CDK4/6 inhibitor plus AI for at least 6 months to enroll. And then, as you mentioned, they got ctDNA testing every 2 to 3 months. This was also a phase 3, double-blind, international trial. And I do want to highlight again, international here, because that's important when we're considering some of this data in the U.S. because it influences some of the results. So, this was presented by Dr. Nick Turner of the Royal Marsden in the UK. So, just a little bit of background for our listeners on ESR1 mutations and why they're important. This is the most common, basically, acquired resistance mutation to patients being treated with aromatase inhibitors. We know that treatment with aromatase inhibitors can induce this. It makes a conformational change in the estrogen receptor that makes the estrogen receptor constitutively active, which allows the cell to signal despite the influence of the aromatase inhibitor to decrease the estrogen production so that the ligand binding doesn't matter as much as far as the cell signaling and transcription is concerned. And camizestrant, you know, as an oral SERD, just to explain that a little bit too; these are estrogen receptor degraders. The first-in-class of a selective estrogen receptor degrader to make it to market was fulvestrant. And that's really been our standard-of-care estrogen degrader for the past 25 years, almost 25 years. And so, a lot of us are just looking for some of these oral SERDs to replace that. But regardless, they do tend to work in the ESR1-mutated population. And we know that patients on aromatase inhibitors, the estimates of patients developing an ESR1 mutation, depending on which study you look at, somewhere between 30% to 50% overall, patients will develop this mutation with hormone-positive metastatic breast cancer. There is a small percentage of patients that have these at baseline without even treatment of an aromatase inhibitor. The estimates of that are somewhere between 0.5 and up to 5%, depending on the trial you look at and the population. But regardless, there is a chance someone on their CDK4/6 inhibitor plus AI at 6 months' time course could have had an ESR1 mutation at that time. But anyway, so they got this ctDNA every 2 to 3 months, and once they were found to develop an ESR1 mutation, the patients were then switched to the oral SERD. AstraZeneca's version of the oral SERD is camizestrant, 75 mg daily. And then their type of CDK4/6 inhibitor was maintained, so they didn't switch the brand of their CDK4/6 inhibitor, importantly. And that was looked at then for progression-free survival, but these were patients with measurable disease by RECIST version 1.1. And the data cut off here was November of 2024. This was a big trial, you know, and I think that that's influential here because this was 3,256 patients, and that's a lot of patients. So, they were all eligible. And then 315 patients ended up being randomized to switch to camizestrant upon presence of that ESR1 mutation. So, that was 157 patients. And then the other half, so they were randomized 1:1, they continued on their AI without switching to an oral SERD. That was 158 patients. They were matched pretty well. And so, their baseline characteristics, you know, the two subgroups was good. But this was highly statistically significant data. I'm not going to diminish that in any way. Your hazard ratio was 0.44. Highly statistically significant confidence intervals. And you had a median progression-free survival in those that switched to camizestrant of 16 months, and then the non-switchers was 9.2 months. So, the progression-free survival benefit there was also consistent across the subgroups. And so, you had at 12 months, the PFS rate was 60.7% for the non-treatment group and 33.4% in the treatment group. What's interesting, though, is we don't have overall survival data. This is really immature, only 12% mature as far as overall survival. And again, because this was an international trial and patients in other countries right now do not have the access to oral SERDs that the United States does, the crossover rate, they were not allowed to crossover, and so, a very few patients, when we look at progression-free survival 2 and ultimately overall survival, were able to access an oral SERD in the off-trial here and in the non-treatment group. And so, that's really important as far as we look at these results. Adverse events were pretty minimal. These are very safe drugs, camizestrant and all the other oral SERDs. They have some mild toxicities. Camizestrant is known for something weird, which is called photopsia, which is some flashing lights in the periphery of the eye, but it doesn't seem to have any serious clinical significance that we know of. It has a little bit of bradycardia, but it's otherwise really well tolerated. You know, I hate to say that because that's very subjective, right? I'm not the one taking the drug. But it doesn't have any serious adverse events that would cause discontinuation. And that's really what we saw in the trial. The discontinuation rates were really low. But overall, I mean, this was a positive trial. SERENA-6 showed that switching to camizestrant at the first sign of an ESR1 mutation on CDK4/6 inhibitor plus AI improved progression-free survival. That's all we can really say from it right now. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, let's move on to ASCENT-04, which was a bit more straightforward. Sacituzumab govitecan plus pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab in PD-L1-positive, triple-negative breast cancer. Could you talk about that study? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, so this was also presented by the lovely Sara Tolaney from Dana-Farber. And this study made me really excited. And maybe that's because I'm a triple-negative breast cancer person. I mean, not to say that I don't treat hundreds of patients with hormone- positive, but our unmet needs in triple negative are huge because this is a disease where you have got to throw your best available therapy at it as soon as you can to improve survival because survival is so poor in this disease. The average survival with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in the United States is still 13-18 months, and that's terrible. And so, for full disclosure, I did have this trial open at my site. I was one of the site PIs. I'm not the global PI of the study, obviously. So, what this study was was for patients who had had at least a progression-free survival of 6 months after their curative intent therapy or de novo metastatic disease. They were PD-L1 positive as assessed by the Dako 22C3 assay of greater than or equal to a CPS score of 10. So, that's what the KEYNOTE-355 trial was based on as well. So, standard definition of PD-L1 positive in breast cancer here. And basically, these patients were randomized 1:1 to either their sacituzumab govitecan plus pembrolizumab, day 1 they got both therapies, and then day 8 just the saci, as is standard for sacituzumab. And then the other group got the KEYNOTE-355 regimen. So, that is pembrolizumab with – your options are carbogem there, paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel. And it's up to investigator's decision which upon those they decided. They followed these patients for disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. It was really an impressive trial in my opinion because we know already that this didn't just improve progression-free survival, because survival is so poor in this disease, of course, we know that it improved overall survival. It's trending towards that very much, and I think that's going to be shown immediately. And then the objective response rates were better, which is key in this disease because in the first-line setting, you've got a lot of people who, especially your relapsed TNBC that don't respond to anything. And you lose a ton of patients even in the first-line setting in this disease. And so, this was 222 patients to chemotherapy and pembro and 221 to sacituzumab plus pembro. Median follow-up has only been 14 months, so it's still super early here. Hazard ratio so far of progression-free survival is 0.65, highly statistically significant, narrow confidence intervals. And so, the median duration of response here for the saci group was 16.5 months versus 9.2 months. So, you're getting a 7-month progression-free survival benefit here, which in triple negative is pretty fantastic. I mean, this reminds me of when we saw the ASCENT data originally come out for sacituzumab, and we were all just so happy that we had this tool now that doubled progression-free and overall survival and made such a difference in this really horrible disease where patients do poorly. So, OS is technically immature here, but it's really trending very heavily towards improvement in overall survival. Importantly, the treatment-related adverse events in this, I mean, we know sacituzumab causes neutropenia, people who are experienced with this drug know how to manage it at this point. There wasn't any really unexpected treatment-related adverse events. You get some people with sacituzumab who have diarrhea. It's usually pretty manageable with some Imodium. So, it was cytopenias predominantly in this disease in this population that were highlighted as far as adverse events. But I'm going to be honest, like I was surprised that this wasn't the plenary over the SERENA-6 data because this, in my mind, there we have a practice-changing trial. I will immediately be trying to use this in my PD-L1 population because, to be honest, as a triple-negative breast cancer clinical specialist, when I get a patient with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer who's PD-L1 positive, I think, "Oh, thank God," because we know that part of the disease just does better in general. But now I have something that really could give them a durable response for much longer than I ever thought possible when I started really heavily treating this disease. And so, this was immediately practice-changing for me. Dr. Allison Zibelli: I think that it's pretty clear that this is at least an option, if not the option, for this group of patients. Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, the duration of responses here was – it's just really important because, I mean, I do think this will make people live longer. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, moving on to the final study that we're going to discuss today, neoCARHP (LBA500), which was neoadjuvant taxane plus trastuzumab, pertuzumab, plus or minus carbo(platin) in HER2-positive early breast cancer. I think this is a study a lot of us have been waiting for. What was the design and the results of this trial? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: I was really excited about this as well because I'm one of those people that was waiting for this. This is a Chinese trial, so that is something to take note of. It wasn't an international trial, but it was a de-escalation trial which had become really popular in HER2-positive therapy because we know that we're overtreating HER2-positive breast cancer in a lot of patients. A lot of patients we're throwing the kitchen sink at it when maybe that is not necessary, and we can really de-escalate and try to personalize therapy a little bit better because these patients tend to do well. So, the standard of care, of course, in HER2-positive curative intent breast cancer with tumors that are greater than 2 cm is to give them the TCHP regimen, which is docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab. And that was sort of established by several trials in the NeoSphere trial, and now it's been repeated in a lot of different studies as well. And so, that's really the standard of care that most people in the United States use for HER2-positive curative intent breast cancer. This was a trial to de-escalate the carboplatin, which I was super excited about because many of us who treat this disease a lot think carbo is the least important part of the therapy you're giving there. We don't really know that it's necessary. We've just been doing it for a long time, and we know that it adds a significant amount of toxicity. It causes thrombocytopenia, it causes severe nausea, really bad cytopenias that can be difficult in the last few cycles of this to manage. So, this trial was created. It randomized patients one to one with stage 2 and 3 HER2-positive breast cancer to either get THP, a taxane, pertuzumab, trastuzumab, similar to the what we do in first-line metastatic HER2-positive versus the whole TCHP with a carboplatin AUC of 6, which is what's pretty standard. And it was a non-inferiority trial, so important there. It wasn't to establish superiority of this regimen, which none of us, I think, were looking for it to. And it was a modified intent-to-treat population. And so, all patients got at least one cycle of this to be assessed as a standard for an intent-to-treat trial. And so, they assumed a pCR rate of about 62.8% for both groups. And, of course, it included both HER2-positive triple positives and ER negatives, which are, you know, a bit different diseases, to be honest, but we all kind of categorize them and treat them the same. And so, this trial was powered appropriately to detect a non-inferiority difference. And so, we had about 380 patients treated on both arms, and there was an absolute difference of only 1.8% of those treated with carbo versus those without. Which was fantastic because you really realized that de-escalation here may be something we can really do. And so, the patients who got, of course, the taxane regimen had fewer adverse events. They had way fewer grade 3 and 4 adverse events than the THP group. No treatment-associated deaths occur, which is pretty standard for- this is a pretty safe regimen, but it causes a lot of hospitalizations due to diarrhea, due to cytopenias, and neutropenic fever, of course. And so, I thought that this was something that I could potentially enact, you know, and be practice-changing. It's hard to say that when it's a trial that was only done in China, so it's not necessarily the United States population always. But I think for patients moving forward, especially those with, say, a 2.5 cm tumor, you know, node negative, those, I'd feel pretty comfortable not giving them the carboplatin here. Notes that I want to make about this population is that the majority were stage 2 and not stage 3. They weren't necessarily your inflammatory HER2-positive breast cancer patients. And that the taxane that was utilized in the trial is a little different than what we use in the United States. The patients were allowed to get nab-paclitaxel, which we don't have FDA approval for in the first-line curative intent setting for HER2-positive breast cancer in the United States. So, a lot of them got abraxane, and then they also got paclitaxel. We tend to use docetaxel every 3 weeks in the United States. So, just to point out that difference. We don't really know if that's important or not, but it's just a little bit different to the population we standardly treat. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, are there patients that you would still give TCHP to? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, great question. I've been asked that a lot in the past like week since ASCO. I'd say in my inflammatory breast cancer patients, that's a group I do tend to sometimes throw the kitchen sink at. Now, I don't actually use AC in those because I know that that was the concern, but I think the TRAIN-2 trial really showed us you don't need to use Adriamycin in HER2-positive disease unless it's like refractory. So, I don't know that I would throw this on my stage 3C or inflammatory breast cancer patients yet because the majority of this were not stage 3. So, in your really highly lymph node positive patients, I'm a little bit hesitant to de-escalate them from the start. This is more of a like, if there's serious toxicity concerns, dropping carbo is absolutely fine here. Dr. Allison Zibelli: All right, great.  Thank you, Dr. Shatsky, for sharing your valuable insights with us on the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Thanks so much, Dr. Zibelli and ASCO Daily News. I really want to thank you for inviting me to talk about this today. It was really fun, and I hope you find my opinions on some of this valuable. And so, I just want to thank everybody and my listeners as well. Dr. Allison Zibelli: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find the links to all the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you like this podcast and you learn things from it, please take a moment to rate, review, and describe because it helps other people find us wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you again. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. More on today's speakers Dr. Allison Zibelli Dr. Rebecca Shatsky @Dr_RShatsky Follow ASCO on social media:  @ASCO on Twitter  @ASCO on Bluesky  ASCO on Facebook  ASCO on LinkedIn   Disclosures: Dr. Allison Zibelli: No relationships to disclose Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Consulting or Advisory Role: Stemline, Astra Zeneca, Endeavor BioMedicines, Lilly, Novartis, TEMPUS, Guardant Health, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Pfizer Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Astra Zeneca, Greenwich LifeSciences, Briacell, Gilead, OnKure, QuantumLeap Health, Stemline Therapeutics, Regor Therapeutics, Greenwich LifeSciences, Alterome Therapeutics  

Dr. John Sweetenham and Dr. Marc Braunstein highlight top research on hematologic malignancies from the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including abstracts on newly diagnosed chronic phase CML, relapsed B-cell lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. Transcript Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. John Sweetenham. On today's episode, we'll be discussing promising advances in newly diagnosed chronic phase CML, relapsed B-cell lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and other hematologic malignancies that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Joining me for this discussion is Dr. Marc Braunstein, a hematologist and oncologist at the NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Marc, there were some great studies in the heme space at this year's Annual Meeting, and it's great to have you back on the podcast to highlight some of these advances. Dr. Marc Braunstein: Yes, I agree, John, and thank you so much for inviting me again. It's great to be here.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Let's start out with Abstract 6501. This was a study that reported on the primary endpoint results of the phase 3B ASC4START trial, which assessed asciminib versus nilotinib in newly diagnosed chronic phase CML. And the primary endpoint of this, as you know, was time to treatment discontinuation because of adverse events. Can you give us your insights into this study? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Absolutely. So, like you mentioned, you know, asciminib is an allosteric inhibitor of the BCR-ABL kinase that has activity in CML, and that includes patients with the T315I mutation that confers resistance to first- and second-generation TKIs. So, the ASC4FIRST study, which was published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed superior efficacy of asciminib compared to investigator-selected first- or second-generation TKIs, actually leading to the FDA approval of asciminib in first-line CML. So, the authors of that study presented data at this year's ASCO meeting from the phase 3 ASC4START comparing safety and time to discontinuation due to adverse events of asciminib versus nilotinib, a second-generation TKI. So, 568 patients with newly diagnosed CML were randomized one-to-one to once-daily asciminib or twice-daily nilotinib. So, at a median follow-up of 9.7 months, about 11% in the asciminib group and 17% in the nilotinib group discontinued treatment, with significantly fewer discontinuations with asciminib due to adverse events. There was also a secondary endpoint of major molecular response, which was also better with asciminib. For example, the MR 4.5, which is a deep response, was 2.5% versus 0.4% favoring asciminib by week 12. So, I think in conclusion, these results build on the ASC4FIRST study, making the case for the superior safety and efficacy of asciminib versus other first- or second-generation TKIs in newly diagnosed CML. Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Marc. Do you think this is going to change practice? Dr. Marc Braunstein: I think so. I think there are still some questions to be answered, such as what resistance mutations occur after first-line treatment with asciminib. But I think the sum of these studies really make the case for using asciminib upfront in CML. Dr. John Sweetenham: Okay, great. Thank you. And let's move on to our second abstract. This was Abstract 7015 and was reported from Mass General Hospital. And this was a study in patients with relapsed and refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and reported the 2-year results of the so-called STARGLO study. This is a comparison of glofitamab, a T-cell engaging bispecific antibody, with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in this group of patients. Can you tell us a little bit about your impressions of this study? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Absolutely. So just for background, the treatment landscape for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma is expanding, now with two bispecific antibodies targeting CD20 that are approved after two or more lines of therapy. Among these, glofitamab was approved in 2023 based on phase 2 data showing an objective response rate of 52%, with 39% complete responses in relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma patients after a median of three prior lines of therapy. Distinguishing glofitamab from epcoritamab, the other approved bispecific, glofitamab was given for 12 cycles and then stopped. Additionally, when combined with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in the phase 3 STARGLO study, there was significantly improved overall survival compared to rituximab plus gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in transplant-ineligible relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma patients at a median follow-up of 11 months.  The authors of that study published last year in Lancet now present at ASCO this year the 2-year follow-up of the STARGLO study. Two hundred and seventy-four patients with a median of one prior line of therapy were randomized two-to-one to glofitamab plus GemOx versus rituximab plus GemOx, with the primary endpoint of overall survival. Here, the median overall survival was not reached versus 13.5 months, with a median PFS also significantly improved at about 14 months versus 4 months in the control. CRS of note in the glofitamab arm was mostly grade 1 or 2, with only about 2.3% grade 3 events. And three of the four patients had grade 1 or 2 neurotoxicity. So, John, putting this into context, I think it's encouraging that we now have randomized data showing the superiority of a bispecific plus chemotherapy over rituximab plus chemotherapy in transplant-ineligible patients. And while only 8% of the patients in the STARGLO study had prior anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, I think this regimen could be considered in those patients who are ineligible for transplant or CAR T-cell therapy. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, I agree. I think a couple of other compelling numbers to me were the fact that around 55% of these patients were alive at 2 years in the group who'd received glofitamab, and that almost 90% of those having that arm of the study who had a CR at the end of treatment were alive at 12 months. So, clearly, it's an active agent and also a kind of great off-the-shelf fixed-duration alternative in these relapsed and refractory patients. Dr. Marc Braunstein: I agree, and I would also note that the phase 3 SKYGLO study is looking at glofitamab plus Pola-R-CHP versus Pola-R-CHP alone. So, we may even be using these eventually in the first-line setting. Dr. John Sweetenham: Absolutely. Let's stay on the theme of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and look at one other abstract in that space, which was Abstract 7000. This was a study from the HOVON group in the Netherlands, which looked at the prospective validation of end-of-treatment circulating tumor DNA in the context of a national randomized trial. What are your thoughts on this? Dr. Marc Braunstein: So, non-invasive liquid biopsies to detect and monitor cancers via circulating tumor-derived DNA or ctDNA, you know, is really emerging as a valuable tool in both solid and liquid tumors to understand disease biology, and also for drug development. So, to date, the most established application of ctDNA in lymphoma, I would say, is really for monitoring of minimal residual disease. So, in this correlative study by Steven Wang and colleagues in the HOVON group, they evaluated the prognostic significance of MRD status as assessed by ctDNA following first-line treatment with curative intent with either R-CHOP or dose-adjusted R-EPOCH. At the end of treatment, encouragingly, 76% of patients were MRD-negative, and 24% were MRD-positive. Now, of note, MRD-positive status at the end of treatment predicted inferior progression-free survival at 2 years, with only 28% of patients who are MRD-positive being progression-free versus 88% who are MRD-negative. And in fact, all the patients who failed to achieve a complete response after first-line treatment and were MRD-positive ultimately relapsed. So, circulating tumor cells are rarely found in large B-cell lymphomas, and so this study really builds on accumulating data that ctDNA has clinical value to detect residual disease with a non-invasive approach. So, there are many implications of how we could potentially use this to detect early signs of relapse, to potentially escalate treatment for consolidation if patients remain MRD-positive. So, I think this will eventually become utilized in clinical practice. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, I agree. I think it's interesting that it provided an independent assessment of response, which was independent, in fact, of the results of PET-CT scanning and so on, which I think was very interesting to me. And the authors of the abstract actually commented in their presentation that they think this should be integrated as part of the standard response assessment now for patients with large B-cell lymphoma. Would you agree with that? Dr. Marc Braunstein: I would. For one thing, it allows repeated sampling. It's a non-invasive approach; it doesn't necessarily require a bone marrow biopsy, and it may have more sensitivity than conventional response measures. So, I think having a standardized system to assess ctDNA will be helpful, and definitely, I think this will be a valuable biomarker of disease response. Dr. John Sweetenham: Okay, great. Thanks. We're going to change gear again now, and we're going to highlight two abstracts in the multiple myeloma space. The first one of these is Abstract 7507. And this abstract reported on the long-term results of the CARTITUDE study for patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. What are your comments on this presentation? Dr. Marc Braunstein: So, this study actually got a lot of press, and I've already had multiple patients asking me about CAR T-cells as a result. Just as some background, CAR T-cells targeting BCMA, which is pretty much universally expressed on malignant plasma cells in myeloma, have really shown remarkable responses, especially in heavily pretreated patients, showing superior progression-free survival in both later and earlier phases of the disease, including in randomized studies in patients with second-line or beyond. So, the CARTITUDE-1 was really the original Phase 1/2 study of ciltacabtagene autoleucel, one of the two approved anti-BCMA CAR T-cell products, which was investigated in patients with a median of six to seven prior lines of therapy. So, these were patients who were pretty heavily pretreated. So, in the study presented by Voorhees at this year's ASCO meeting, this was the long-term follow-up at a median of 5 years from the one-time CAR infusion in these patients with a median of five prior lines of therapy. And remarkably, of the 97 patients, 33% remained progression-free at 5 years plus, without needing any further myeloma treatment during that time. And among those 33% of patients, 23% had high-risk cytogenetics, which we know are notoriously difficult to achieve responses in. What was interesting that they presented as correlative studies was there were some biomarkers that were distinguishing the patients who had the long PFS, including enrichment of more naive T-cells in the product, lower neutrophil-to-T-cell ratio, higher hemoglobin and platelets at baseline, and higher CAR T-cell levels relative to soluble BCMA levels. And the fact that they reported a median overall survival of 61 months in these really heavily pretreated patients, I think these data are impressive. I think we're going to continue to be using CAR T even earlier in the disease status than fifth or sixth line, as it was studied in CARTITUDE-1. There are even ongoing studies looking at first-line treatment with CAR T-cells. Dr. John Sweetenham: So, do you think that those 33% of patients who are disease-free at 5 years, do you think any of those are cured?  Dr. Marc Braunstein: That was one of the headlines in the press. I think if we're going to discuss things like "operational cures," where we're transforming myeloma into really a chronic disease, where patients can live practically a normal life expectancy, I think the measure of 5 years, especially in this population that was explored in CARTITUDE-1, I think we can call that close to a cure. Dr. John Sweetenham: Okay. Well, thank you. Exciting data, for sure. We're going to conclude today with another abstract in the multiple myeloma space. And this was Abstract 7500, which looked at an MRD, minimal residual disease-driven strategy following induction and transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients and reported on the primary endpoints of the phase 3 MIDAS trial. Can you walk us through this one, Marc? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Absolutely. It is a bit more complicated than the prior one we discussed because this is a randomized study with four arms. So, I'll start by saying that anti-CD38-based quadruplet regimens continue to show superior outcomes in both transplant-eligible and -ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. The MIDAS study mentioned is an open-label phase 3 trial with four arms in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed myeloma patients.  And initially, these patients were all treated with quadruplet therapy with the anti-CD38 antibody isatuximab combined with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in 718 newly diagnosed myeloma patients. So, they received the quadruplet regimen for six cycles and then were randomized based on their MRD status at 10 to the negative fifth following six cycles of induction. And that first randomization, if they were MRD-negative, was to either consolidation with six more cycles of the quadruplet regimen or transplant, autologous transplant, plus two cycles additionally of the quadruplet regimen. And both arms were followed by lenalidomide maintenance. The primary endpoint was MRD negativity at 10 to the negative sixth prior to entering the lenalidomide maintenance component. And in addition, the patients who were MRD-positive after induction were randomized to transplant plus two cycles of consolidation or a tandem autologous transplant. So, the median follow-up of the study was about 16 months, and the pre-maintenance rate of MRD negativity was high, between 84 to 86% between the two arms who were MRD-negative, which was not significantly different. And as far as the 233 patients who were MRD-positive, the pre-maintenance MRD negativity was also not significantly different at 40% for those who received autologous transplant, and 32% who received a tandem transplant. So, there's a lot of debate in the myeloma field about the evolving role of autologous transplant and whether transplant still plays a significant role in patients who are either MRD-negative after induction or who have deep remissions and are of standard risk. So, I think these data suggest that patients who are MRD-negative after induction with a quadruplet regimen studied here, which was Isa-KRd, plus consolidation, may possibly be able to forego consolidation with autologous transplant. And likewise, for those patients who are MRD-positive after induction, tandem transplant didn't seem to provide much of a benefit compared to single transplant, which is consistent with prior studies such as the StaMINA study. Dr. John Sweetenham: So, where do you think this leaves us, Marc? Are we going to need more studies before we have any definitive guidance on whether an autologous transplant is still appropriate for those patients who are MRD-negative? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Well, as clinicians, we want to do what's best for our patient. And in myeloma, the best we can do is to get as deep remissions as possible, meaning MRD negativity. And so, I think it's clear from the MIDAS study and others that quadruplet regimens provide the deepest remissions when given upfront. We can debate the role of autologous transplant. I think certainly the role of tandem autologous transplant is fading. But as far as a single autologous transplant as consolidation, I think it's reasonable as a goal to try to achieve MRD negativity after the transplant, especially for patients who remain MRD-positive after induction. Dr. John Sweetenham: Okay, great. Marc, thanks as always for sharing your insights on the heme malignancies studies from the ASCO meeting this year and for joining us on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Always appreciate hearing your thoughtful and balanced input on these. Dr. Marc Braunstein: My pleasure. Thank you, John. Dr. John Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.   Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.  Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Find out more about today's guest:  Dr. John Sweetenham Dr. Marc Braunstein   @docbraunstein     Follow ASCO on social media:   @ASCO on Twitter  ASCO on Bluesky  ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures:  Dr. John Sweetenham:  Consulting or Advisory Role: EMA Wellness  Dr. Marc Braunstein:  Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Adaptive Biotechnologies, GlaxoSmithKline, ADC Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Abbvie, Guidepoint Global, Epizyme, Sanofi, CTI BioPharma Corp  Speakers' Bureau: Janssen Oncology  Research Funding (Institution): Janssen, Celgene/BMS

Dr. John Sweetenham and Dr. Erika Hamilton highlight key abstracts that were presented at ASCO25, including advances in breast and pancreatic cancers as well as remarkable data from the use of structured exercise programs in cancer care. Transcript Dr. Sweetenham: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. John Sweetenham. Today, we'll be discussing some of the key advances and novel approaches in cancer care that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. I'm delighted to be joined again by the chair of the Meeting's Scientific Program, Dr. Erika Hamilton. She is a medical oncologist and director of breast cancer and gynecologic cancer research at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tennessee.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Hamilton, congratulations on a fantastic meeting. From the practice-changing science to the world-renowned speakers at this year's Meeting, ASCO25 really reflected the amazing progress we're seeing in oncology today and the enormous opportunities that lie ahead of us. And thanks for coming back on to the podcast today to discuss some of these advances. Dr. Hamilton: Thanks, Dr. Sweetenham. I'm happy to join you today. It really was an impactful ASCO Annual Meeting. I probably am biased, but some great research was presented this year, and I heard lots of great conversations happening while we were there. Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely. There was a lot of buzz, as well as a lot of media buzz around the meeting this year, and I think that's probably a good place to start. So I'd like to dive into abstract number LBA3510. This was the CHALLENGE trial, which created a lot of buzz at the meeting and subsequently in the media. This is the study that was led by the NCI Canada Clinical Trials Group, which was the first randomized phase 3 trial in patients with stage III and high-risk stage II colon cancer, which demonstrated that a post-treatment structured exercise program is both feasible and effective in improving disease-free survival in this patient group. The study was performed over a long period of time and in many respects is quite remarkable. So, I wonder if you could give us your thoughts about this study and whether you think that this means that our futures are going to be full of structured exercise programs for those patients who may benefit. Dr. Hamilton: It's a fantastic question. I think that this abstract did create a lot of buzz. We were very excited when we read it. It was highlighted in one of the Clinical Science Symposium sessions. But briefly, this was a phase 3 randomized trial. It was conducted at 55 centers, so really a broad experience, and patients that had resected colon cancer who completed adjuvant therapy were allowed to participate. There were essentially 2 groups: a structured exercise program, called ‘the exercise group,' or health education materials alone, so that was called just ‘the health education group.' And this was a 3-year intervention, so very high quality. The primary end point, as you mentioned, was disease-free survival. This actually accrued from 2009 to 2024, so quite a lift, and almost 900 patients underwent randomization to the exercise group or the health education group. And at almost 8 years of follow-up, we saw that the disease-free survival was significantly longer in the exercise group than the health education group. This was essentially 80.3% of patients were disease-free in exercise and 73.9% in the health education group. So a difference of over 6 percentage points, which, you know, at least in the breast cancer world, we make decisions about whether to do chemotherapy or not based on these kind of data. We also looked at overall survival in the exercise group and health education group, and the 8-year overall survival was 90.3% in the exercise group and 83.2% in the health education group. So this was a difference of 7.1%. Still statistically significant. I think this was really a fantastic effort over more than a decade at over 50 institutions with almost 900 patients, really done in a very systematic, high-intervention way that showed a fantastic result. Absolutely generalizable for patients with colon cancer. We have hints in other cancers that this is beneficial, and frankly, for our patients for other comorbidities, such as cardiovascular, etc., I really think that this is an abstract that deserved the press that it received. Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely, and it is going to be very interesting, I think, over the next 2 or 3 years to see how much impact this particular study might have on programs across the country and across the world actually, in terms of what they do in this kind of adjuvant setting for structured exercise. Dr. Hamilton: Absolutely.  So let's move on to Abstract 3006. This was an NCI-led effort comparing genomic testing using ctDNA and tissue from patients with less common cancers who were enrolled in but not eligible for a treatment arm of the NCI-MATCH trial. Tell us about your takeaways from this study. Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, so I thought this was a really interesting study based, as you said, on NCI-MATCH. And many of the listeners will probably remember that the original NCI-MATCH study screened almost 6,000 patients to assess eligibility for those who had an actionable mutation. And it turned out that about 60% of the patients who went on to the study had less common tumors, which were defined as anything other than colon, rectum, breast, non–small cell lung cancer, or prostate cancer. And most of those patients lacked an eligible mutation of interest and so didn't get onto a trial therapy. But with a great deal of foresight, the study group had actually collected plasma samples from these patients so that they would have the opportunity to look at circulating tumor DNA profiles with the potential being that this might be another way for testing for clinically relevant mutations in some of these less common cancer types. So initially, they tested more than 2,000 patients, and to make a somewhat complicated story short, there was a subset of five histologies with a larger representation in terms of sample size. And these were cholangiocarcinoma, small cell lung cancer, esophageal cancer, pancreatic, and salivary gland cancer. And in those particular tumors, when they compared the ctDNA sequencing with the original tumor, there was a concordance there of around 84%, 85%. And in the presentation, the investigators go on to list the specific mutated genes that were identified in each of those tumors. But I think that the other compelling part of this study from my perspective was not just that concordance, which suggests that there's an opportunity there for the use of ctDNA instead of tumor biopsies in some of these situations, but what was also interesting was the fact that there were several clinically relevant mutations which were detected only in the circulating tumor DNA. And a couple of examples of those included IDH1 for cholangiocarcinoma, BRAF and p53 in several histologies, and microsatellite instability was most prevalent in small cell lung cancer in the ctDNA. So I think that what this demonstrates is that liquid biopsy is certainly a viable screening option for patients who are being assessed for matching for targeted therapies in clinical trials. The fact that some of these mutations were only seen in the ctDNA and not in the primary tumor specimen certainly suggests that there's some tumor heterogeneity. But I think that for me, the most compelling part of this study was the fact that many of these mutations were only picked up in the plasma. And so, as the authors concluded, they believe that a comprehensive gene profiling with circulating tumor DNA probably should be included as a primary screening modality in future trials of targeted therapy of this type. Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, I think that that's really interesting and mirrors a lot of data that we've been seeing. At least in breast cancer, you know, we still do a biopsy up front to make sure that our markers, we're still treating the right disease that we think we are. But it really speaks to the utility of using ctDNA for serial monitoring and the emergence of mutations. Dr. Sweetenham: Absolutely. And you mentioned breast cancer, and so I'd like to dwell on that for a moment here because obviously, there was a huge amount of exciting breast cancer data presented at the meeting this year. And in particular, I'd like to ask you about LBA1008, the DESTINY-Breast09 clinical trial, which I think has the potential to establish a new first-line standard of care for metastatic HER2+ breast cancer. And that's an area where we haven't seen a whole lot of innovation for around a decade now. So can you give us some of the highlights of this trial and what your thinking is, having seen the results? Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, absolutely. So this was a trial in the first-line metastatic HER2 setting. So this was looking at trastuzumab deruxtecan. We certainly have had no shortage of reports around this drug, initially approved for later lines. DESTINY-Breast03 brought it into our second-line setting for HER2+ disease and we're now looking at DESTINY-Breast09 in first-line. So this actually was a 3-arm trial where patients were randomized 1:1:1 against standard taxane/trastuzumab/pertuzumab in one arm; trastuzumab deruxtecan with pertuzumab in another arm; and then a third arm, trastuzumab deruxtecan alone. And what we did not see reported was that trastuzumab deruxtecan-alone arm. But we did have reports from the trastuzumab deruxtecan plus pertuzumab versus the chemo/trastuzumab/pertuzumab. And what we saw was a statistically significant improvement in median progression-free survival, 26.9 months up to 40.7, so an improvement of 13.8 months, over a year in PFS. Not to mention that we're now in the 40-month range for PFS in first-line disease. Really, across all subgroups, we really weren't able to pick out a subset of patients that did not benefit. We did see about a 12% ILD rate with trastuzumab deruxtecan. That really is on par with what we've seen in other studies, around 10%-15%. I think that this is going to become a new standard of care in the first-line. I think it did leave some unanswered questions. We saw some data from the PATINA trial this past San Antonio Breast, looking at the addition of endocrine therapy with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor, palbociclib, for those patients that also have ER+ disease, after taxane has dropped out in the first-line setting. So how we're going to kind of merge all this together is, I suspect that there are going to be patients that we or they just don't have the appetite to continue 3 to 4 years of trastuzumab deruxtecan. And so we're probably going to be looking at a maintenance-type strategy for them, maybe integrating the PATINA data there. But how we really put this into practice in the first-line setting and if or when we think about de-escalating down from trastuzumab deruxtecan to antibody therapy are some lingering questions. Dr. Sweetenham: Okay, so certainly is going to influence practice, but watch this space for a little bit longer, it sounds as though that's what you're saying. Dr. Hamilton: Absolutely.  So let's move on to GI cancer. Abstract 4006 reported preliminary results from the randomized phase 2 study of elraglusib in combination with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus the chemo gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel alone in patients with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. Can you tell us more about this study? Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely. As you mentioned, elraglusib is actually a first-in-class inhibitor of GSK3-beta, which has multiple potential actions in pancreatic cancer. But the drug itself may be involved in mediating drug resistance as well as in some tumor immune response modulation. Some of that's not clearly understood, I believe, right now. But certainly, preclinical data suggests that the drug may be effective in preclinical models and may also be effective in combination with chemotherapy and potentially with immune-modulating agents as well. So this particular study, as you said, was an open-label, randomized phase 2 study in which patients with pancreatic cancer were randomized 2:1 in favor of the elraglusib plus GMP—gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel—versus the chemotherapy alone. And upon completion of the study, which is not right now, median overall survival was the primary end point, but there are a number of other end points which I'll talk about in just a moment. But the sample size was planned to be around 207 patients. The primary analysis included 155 patients in the combination arm versus 78 patients in the gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel arm. Overall, the 1-year overall survival rate was 44.1% for the patients in the elraglusib-containing arm versus 23.0% in the patients receiving gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel only. When they look at the median overall survival, it was 9.3 months for the experimental arm versus 7.2 months for chemotherapy alone. So put another way, there's around a 37% reduction in the risk of death with the use of this combination arm. The treatment was overall well-tolerated. There were some issues with grade 1 to 2 transient visual impairment in a large proportion of the patients. The most common treatment-related adverse effects with the elraglusib/GMP combination was transient visual impairment, which affected around 60% of the patients. Most of the more serious treatment-related adverse events included neutropenia, anemia, and fatigue in 50%, 25%, and 16% of the patients, respectively. So the early results from this study show a significant benefit for 1-year overall survival and for median overall survival with, as I mentioned above, a significant reduction in the risk of death. The authors went on to mention that the median overall survival for the control arm in this study is somewhat lower than in other comparable trials, but they think that this may be related to a more advanced disease burden in this particular study. Of interest to me was that right now: there is no apparent difference in progression-free survival between the 2 arms of this study. The authors described this as potentially indicating that this may be related in some way to immune modulation and immune effects on the tumor, which, if I'm completely honest, I don't totally understand. And so, the improvement in overall survival, as far as I can see at the moment, is not matched by an improvement in progression-free survival. So I think we probably need to wait for more time to elapse to see what happens with the study. And so, I think it certainly is an interesting study, and the results are intriguing, but I think it's probably a little early for it to actually shift the treatment paradigm in this disease. Dr. Hamilton: Fantastic. I think we've been waiting for advances in pancreatic cancer for a long time, but this, not unlike others, we learn more and then learn more we don't realize, so. Dr. Sweetenham: Right. Let's shift gears at this point and talk about a couple of other abstracts in kind of a very different space. Let's start out with symptom management for older adults with cancer. We know that undertreated symptoms are common among the older patient population, and Abstract 11002 reported on a randomized trial that demonstrated the effects of remote monitoring for older patients with cancer in terms of kind of symptoms and so on. Can you tell us a little bit about this study and whether you think this approach will potentially improve care for older patients? Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, I really liked this abstract. It was conducted through the Veterans Affairs, and it was based in California, which I'm telling you that because it's going to have a little bit of an implication later on. But essentially, adults that were 75 years or older who were Medicare Advantage beneficiaries were eligible to participate. Forty-three clinics in Southern California and Arizona, and patients were randomized either into a control group of usual clinic care alone, or an intervention group, which was usual care plus a lay health worker-led proactive telephone-based weekly symptom assessment, and this was for 12 months using the validated Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. So, there was a planned enrollment of at least 200 patients in each group. They successfully met that. And this lay health worker reviewed assessments with a physician assistant, who conducted follow-up for symptoms that changed by 2 points from a prior assessment or were rated 4 or greater. So almost a triage system to figure out who needed to be reached out to and to kind of work on symptoms. What I thought was fantastic about this was it was very representative of where it enrolled. There were actually about 50% of patients enrolled here that were Hispanic or Latinos. So some of our underserved populations and really across a wide variety of tumor types. They found that the intervention group had 53% lower odds of emergency room use, 68% lower odds of hospital use than the control group. And when they translated this to actual total cost of care, this was a savings of about $12,000 U.S. per participant and 75% lower odds of a death in an acute care facility. So I thought this was really interesting for a variety of reasons. One, certainly health care utilization and cost, but even more so, I think any of our patients would want to prevent hospitalizations and ER visits. Normally, that's not a fantastic experience having to feel poorly enough that you're in the emergency room or the hospital. And really showing in kind of concrete metrics that we were able to decrease this with this intervention. In terms of sustainability and scalability, I think the question is really the workforce to do this. Obviously, you know, this is going to take dedicated employees to have the ability to reach out to these patients, etc., but I think in value-based care, there's definitely a possibility of having reimbursement and having the funds to institute a program like this. So, definitely thought-provoking, and I hope it leads to more interventions. Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, we've seen, over several years now, many of these studies which have looked at remote symptom monitoring and so on in this patient population, and many of them do show benefits for that in kinds of end points, not the least in this study being hospitalization and emergency room avoidance. But I think the scalability and personnel issue is a huge one, and I do wonder at some level whether we may see some AI-based platforms coming along that could actually help with this and provide interactions with these patients outside of actual real people, or at least in combination with real people. Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, that's a fantastic point.  So let's talk a little bit about clinical trials. So eligibility assessment for oncology clinical trials, or prescreening, really relies on manual review of unstructured clinical notes. It's time-consuming, it's prone to errors, and Abstract 1508 reported on the final analysis of a randomized trial that looked at the effect of human-AI teams prescreening for clinical trial eligibility versus human-only or AI-only prescreening. So give us more good news about AI. What did the study find? Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, this is a really, a really interesting study. And of course, any of us who have ever been involved in clinical trials will know that accrual is always a problem. And I think most centers have attempted, and some quite successfully managed to develop prescreening programs so that patients are screened by a health care provider or health care worker prior to being seen in the clinic, and the clinical investigator will then already know whether they're going to be eligible for a trial or not. But as you've already said, it's a slow process. It's typically somewhat inefficient and requires a lot of time on the part of the health care workers to actually do this in a successful way. And so, this was a study from Emory University where they took three models of ways in which they could assess the accuracy of the prescreening of charts for patients who are going to be considered for clinical trials. One of these was essentially the regular way of having two research coordinators physically abstract the charts. The second one was an AI platform which would extract longitudinal EHR data. And then the third one was a combination of the two. So the AI would be augmented by the research coordinator or the other way around. As a gold standard, they had three independent oncology reviewers who went through all of these charts to provide what they regarded as being the benchmark for accuracy. In a way, it's not a surprise to me because I think that a number of other systems which have used this combination of human verification of AI-based tools, it actually ultimately concluded that the combination of the two in terms of chart accuracy was for the most part better than either one individually, either the research coordinator or the AI alone. So I'll give you just a few examples of where specifically that mattered. The human plus AI platform was more accurate in terms of tumor staging, in terms of identifying biomarker testing and biomarker results, as well as biomarker interpretation, and was also superior in terms of listing medications. There are one or two other areas where either the AI alone was somewhat more accurate, but the significant differences were very much in favor of a combination of human + AI screening of these patient charts. So, in full disclosure, this didn't save time, but what the authors reported was that there were definite efficiency gains, and presumably this would actually become even more improved once the research coordinators were somewhat more comfortable and at home with the AI tool. So, I thought it was an interesting way of trying to enhance clinical trial accrual up front by this combination of humans and technology, and I think it's going to be interesting to see if this gets adopted at other centers in the future. Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, I think it's really fascinating, all the different places that we can be using AI, and I love the takeaway that AI and humans together are better than either individually. Dr. Sweetenham: Absolutely.  Thanks once again, Dr. Hamilton, for sharing your insights with us today and for all of the incredible work you did to build a robust program. And also, congratulations on what was, I think, a really remarkable ASCO this year, one of the most exciting for some time, I think. So thank you again for that. Dr. Hamilton: Thanks so much. It was really a pleasure to work on ASCO 2025 this year. Dr. Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find links to all the abstracts we discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Be sure to catch up on all of our coverage from the Annual Meeting. You can catch up on my daily reports that were published each day of the Annual Meeting, featuring the key science and innovations presented. And we'll have wrap-up episodes publishing in June, covering the full spectrum of malignancies from ASCO25. If you value the insights you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   More on today's speakers: Dr. John Sweetenham   Dr. Erika Hamilton @erikahamilton9   Follow ASCO on social media:  @ASCO on Twitter  ASCO on Bluesky  ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures:     Dr. John Sweetenham:     No relationships to disclose    Dr. Erika Hamilton: Consulting or Advisory Role (Inst): Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Mersana, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Ellipses Pharma, Olema Pharmaceuticals, Stemline Therapeutics, Tubulis, Verascity Science, Theratechnologies, Accutar Biotechnology, Entos, Fosun Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Medical Pharma Services, Hosun Pharma, Zentalis Pharmaceuticals, Jefferies, Tempus Labs, Arvinas, Circle Pharma, Janssen, Johnson and Johnson   Research Funding (Inst): AstraZeneca, Hutchison MediPharma, OncoMed, MedImmune, Stem CentRx, Genentech/Roche, Curis, Verastem, Zymeworks, Syndax, Lycera, Rgenix, Novartis, Millenium, TapImmune, Inc., Lilly, Pfizer, Lilly, Pfizer, Tesaro, Boehringer Ingelheim, H3 Biomedicine, Radius Health, Acerta Pharma, Macrogenics, Abbvie, Immunomedics, Fujifilm, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Merus, Nucana, Regeneron, Leap Therapeutics, Taiho Pharmaceuticals, EMD Serono, Daiichi Sankyo, ArQule, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, CytomX Therapeutics, InventisBio, Deciphera, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, Zenith Epigentics, Arvinas, Harpoon, Black Diamond, Orinove, Molecular Templates, Seattle Genetics, Compugen, GI Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Dana-Farber Cancer Hospital, Shattuck Labs, PharmaMar, Olema Pharmaceuticals, Immunogen, Plexxikon, Amgen, Akesobio Australia, ADC Therapeutics, AtlasMedx, Aravive, Ellipses Pharma, Incyte, MabSpace Biosciences, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pionyr, Repetoire Immune Medicines, Treadwell Therapeutics, Accutar Biotech, Artios, Bliss Biopharmaceutical, Cascadian Therapeutics, Dantari, Duality Biologics, Elucida Oncology, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Relay Therapeutics, Tolmar, Torque, BeiGene, Context Therapeutics, K-Group Beta, Kind Pharmaceuticals, Loxo Oncology, Oncothyreon, Orum Therapeutics, Prelude Therapeutics, Profound Bio, Cullinan Oncology, Bristol-Myers Squib, Eisai, Fochon Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, Inspirna, Myriad Genetics, Silverback Therapeutics, Stemline Therapeutics

Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 5 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including data from large trials in advanced malignant melanoma and mCSPC plus a new approach to first-line treatment for patients with multiple myeloma who are not transplant eligible. Transcript Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast, with my takeaways on selected abstracts from Day 5 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. My disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. The selected abstracts from this final day of ASCO25 include important new data from large, randomized trials in patients with advanced malignant melanoma and patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, as well as a new approach to the first-line treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who are not transplant eligible.  Starting with LBA9500, this study was conducted in patients with completely resected stage III or IV malignant melanoma and compared the combination of relatlimab plus nivolumab versus nivolumab alone in this population. The study, named the RELATIVITY-098 trial, was presented by Dr. Georgina Long from the University of Sydney, Australia. In her introduction to the study, Dr. Long explained that the current standard of care for adjuvant therapy of resected stage III/IV melanoma is with PD-1 monotherapy with nivolumab, but that about 50% of patients will suffer from a subsequent relapse. In the first-line setting in patients with advanced or unresectable melanoma, the combination of nivolumab with the LAG-3 inhibitor, relatlimab, has been previously shown to improve progression-free survival in the RELATIVITY-047 trial. The current study evaluated this same combination in the adjuvant setting. More than 1,000 patients from 24 countries were randomized to receive either nivolumab alone (546 patients) or the combination of nivolumab with relatlimab (547 patients). Both treatments were given for a maximum of 1 year or until progression of disease, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or death. Various biomarker studies were also undertaken including LAG-3 and PD-1 expression on CD8-positive T cells. The primary endpoint of the study was relapse-free survival, and Dr. Long reported that this was the same in both arms of the study. For example, at 24 months, the relapse-free survival was 64% in the monotherapy arm compared with 62% in the combination arm. The hazard ratio was 1.01 and the P value was 0.928. Metastasis-free survival was also identical in both arms. No benefit was observed for the combination in any of the prespecified subgroups. No new toxicity signals emerged compared with the RELATIVITY-047 trial. Interestingly, the baseline surface expression of LAG-3 and co-expression of LAG-3 and PD-1 on CD8 T cells in the 098 adjuvant trial were lower than in the 047 advanced disease trial, perhaps explaining why the combination did not confer benefit over nivo alone in the adjuvant setting. This is an important result, demonstrating that results from one clinical setting cannot always be extrapolated to another. Although the combination has gained some use in the adjuvant setting, this study clearly demonstrates that more drug in this situation is no better and that monotherapy remains the current standard of care. Results from the AMPLITUDE trial for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer with alterations in homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes, in LBA5006, were presented today by Dr. Gerhardt Attard from University College London, UK. This international, multicenter study evaluated the combination of the selective PARP inhibitor, niraparib, in combination with abiraterone acetate and prednisone. The same combination has been previously shown to improve outcomes in castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer harboring BRCA mutations in the MAGNITUDE study. The current trial included patients with castration-sensitive disease with HRR mutations including BRCA1/2. Six hundred and ninety-six patients were randomized between niraparib, abiraterone, and prednisone plus androgen deprivation therapy, or the same combination with placebo instead of niraparib. Permitted prior therapies included no more than 6 months of prior androgen deprivation therapy and the use of docetaxel, or prior palliative radiation therapy. The primary endpoint of the study was radiographic relapse-free survival. Dr. Attard reported that the risk for radiographic progression-free survival in the whole population was significantly reduced by 37% with niraparib and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone compared with the placebo arm. The radiographic progression-free survival risk reduction with niraparib in the prespecified BRCA1/2 subgroup was 48% and reached statistical significance compared with the placebo arm. The secondary endpoint of time to symptomatic progression was also improved with niraparib in the HRR population and the BRCA1/2 subgroup. There was a trend for overall survival favoring the niraparib combination. However, the overall survival data were immature at this first interim analysis and did not yet reach statistical significance. No new safety concerns emerged with the toxicity data consistent with the MAGNITUDE study. Less than 5% more of the patients on the experimental arm discontinued treatment in comparison to the control arm. The authors conclude that the AMPLITUDE study results support the use of niraparib, abiraterone, and prednisone as a new treatment option for patients with metastatic castration- sensitive prostate cancer and BRCA and homologous recombination repair gene alterations. The results certainly support this conclusion and are potentially practice-changing. Turning to hematologic malignancies, my final selection from today's presentations is Abstract 7504, presented by Dr. Hang Quach from St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, and describes a novel combination of elranatamab, daratumumab, and lenalidomide in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are not transplant-eligible – the so-called MagnetisMM-6 trial part 1. Elranatamab is a novel bispecific T-cell engaging antibody directed against BCMA and CD3, which has previously been approved for certain patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. In the present study, this was combined with lenalidomide and daratumumab in newly diagnosed patients. The report today describes the dose-finding phase of this study, which was part 1, specifically addressing so-called dose level ‘G', comprising elranatamab 76mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks plus daratumumab 1800mg subcutaneously and lenalidomide 25mg given orally. Thirty-seven patients were entered at this dose level, of whom 32 were on treatment at the time of analysis. Early response data show an overall response rate of 97.3%. With median follow up of 7.9 months, the current CR rate is 27% with a VGPR rate of almost 68%. The most frequent toxicities were hematologic, with neutropenia observed in 75%. Some cytokine release syndrome was observed in about 60% of patients, but none was greater than grade 2. The authors conclude that this combination is active in untreated multiple myeloma, with manageable toxicity and evidence of responses which appear to deepen over time. The dose-finding component of this trial is continuing and will subsequently progress into a phase 3 trial based on the data from the current study. This will compare daratumumab plus lenalidomide with the same combination plus elranatamab in previously untreated patients. That concludes our special coverage from the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Thanks for listening and we hope you have enjoyed listening to our top takeaways from ASCO25. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer:  The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  Find out more about today's speaker:    Dr. John Sweetenham    Follow ASCO on social media:     @ASCO on Twitter    @ASCO on Bluesky    ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures:   Dr. John Sweetenham:    No relationships to disclose

Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 4 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including new research on maintenance therapy in small cell lung cancer and a virtual reality psychosocial intervention for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Transcript Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast, with my takeaways on selected abstracts from Day 4 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. My disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Today's selection features reports of 3 randomized trials in very different clinical settings: maintenance therapy in extensive small cell lung cancer (SCLC), upfront surgery in advanced ovarian cancer, and a supportive care intervention for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The first of these studies, Abstract 8006, was presented by Dr. Luis Paz-Ares from the University Hospital [October 12] in Madrid, Spain, and reports the primary results of the IMforte trial. This was a phase 3 trial evaluating the combination of lurbinectedin and atezolizumab as first-line maintenance therapy in patients with extensive small cell lung cancer. Despite some improvements in the first-line treatment of extensive small cell lung cancer with the use of checkpoint inhibitors in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy, most of the patients experience early disease progression and long-term survival remains very limited. This provides a rationale for considering a maintenance intervention. Lurbinectedin is an alkylating agent and transcription inhibitor [that is] already approved in the United States for patients with relapsed/refractory metastatic SCLC following platinum-based chemotherapy. It has been shown to synergize with immune checkpoint inhibitors in pre-clinical studies and has also been evaluated in early-phase clinical trials. The IMforte trial is a global, randomized trial in which patients are initially treated with atezolizumab, and those patients who do not progress on induction therapy are then randomized to maintenance therapy with atezolizumab alone or atezolizumab with lurbinectedin. The primary endpoints of the study were progression-free and overall survival. Four hundred and eighty-three patients were randomized and at a median follow-up of 15 months, the median progression-free survival for patients who received the combination was 5.4 months and the median overall survival was 13.2 months. This compares with 2.1 and 10.6 months, respectively, in patients who received atezolizumab only. The lurbinectedin and atezolizumab combination was generally well-tolerated, with no new or unexpected safety signals. The benefit was consistent in magnitude across all the relevant patient subgroups. This is the first phase 3 study to show a progression-free and overall survivial improvement with first-line maintenance in extensive stage SCLC and the result is likely to be practice-changing, establishing a new standard of care in this tough-to-treat disease. Next up is LBA5500, presented by Dr. Sven Mahner from LMU University in Munich, Germany. This describes the results of the TRUST study, a randomized trial of upfront surgical therapy in advanced ovarian cancer. As background, total macroscopic tumor resection with maximal effort cytoreductive surgery is the cornerstone of treatment in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. The optimal timing of such surgery remains controversial, whether it's more beneficial as a primary cytoreductive surgery before chemotherapy or in the form of interval cytoreductive surgery after 3 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Previous studies have addressed this issue, but results have been confounded by issues of patient and center selection. The TRUST study is a randomized, international, multicenter phase 3 trial that compares the outcomes of the timing of surgery in surgically fit patients with seemingly resectable FIGO stage IIIB/IVB ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal carcinoma. To ensure consistent and adequate surgical quality, participating centers in the trial were required to obtain accreditation and undergo an onsite quality assurance review. This included assessment of infrastructure, surgical proficiency, complete resection rates, and surgical volume. Seven hundred and ninety-seven patients with advanced ovarian cancer were randomized to undergo surgery prior to therapy with 6 cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel along with bevacizumab and a PARP inhibitor, or to have the surgery between the third and fourth cycle of the same systemic therapy. Of the initial 797 patients, 688 comprised the intent-to-treat population, of whom 345 received primary cytoreductive surgery and 343 received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery.  The results show that patients undergoing primary surgery had significantly improved progression-free survival compared with those who had interval cytoreductive surgery (median progression-free survival was 22.1 months versus 19.7 months). No difference in overall survival was observed between the 2 arms of the study.  This is the first study to show a benefit for primary cytoreductive surgery, although the progression-free survival improvement was not reflected in an overall survival difference. A subgroup analysis for patients who underwent complete cytoreduction suggests a progression-free survival and survival benefit, although it isn't clear to me that the study was powered for this endpoint. Nevertheless, these are very difficult studies to perform, and the investigators should be congratulated for this robustly conducted clinical trial. Today's final abstract is 1504, presented by Dr. Hermioni Amonoo from Harvard Medical School. The trial evaluated BMT-VR, a virtual reality psychosocial intervention for patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation. This randomized trial included adult patients undergoing autologous and allogeneic transplantation. The BMT-VR platform included, among others, modules addressing psychoeducation, coping, acceptance, and gratitude. BMT-VR patients were provided with VR headsets and completed all modules during their hospitalization. Patient-reported outcomes were then assessed at 2, 4, 12, and 24 weeks post-BMT. Use of the VR tool was tracked during hospitalization. Control patients received usual care during their hospital stay and were then assessed at the same intervals post-BMT.  Eighty evaluable patients were randomized, 39 to BMT-VR and 41 to usual care. Completion rates for the BMT-VR modules were high [at] around 70-75%.  Patients who received the BMT-VR intervention experienced significantly improved anxiety, quality of life, and coping at 4 weeks post-BMT. In the longer term, sustained benefits were seen at 24 weeks for some endpoints including quality of life, with some benefits, including for depression and PTSD symptoms, improving longitudinally over the study period. These data are preliminary and will need to be confirmed in larger multicenter studies, but this trial demonstrates the feasibility of using virtual interventions in our patients and also provides intriguing preliminary data that they may be effective. Thanks for listening to today's report and I hope you will join me again tomorrow to hear more top takeaways from the final day of ASCO25. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.   Disclaimer:   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.     Find out more about today's speaker:     Dr. John Sweetenham       Follow ASCO on social media:      @ASCO on Twitter     @ASCO on Bluesky     ASCO on Facebook     ASCO on LinkedIn       Disclosures:    Dr. John Sweetenham:     No relationships to disclose 

Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 3 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including new research for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma and 2 studies on novel approaches in non-small cell lung cancer. Transcript Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast, with my takeaways on selected abstracts from Day 3 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Today's selection features studies addressing the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma and 2 studies exploring novel approaches in non-small cell lung cancer. My disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. The first abstract is number 4505. This study, led by Dr. Toni Choueiri of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, describes the final analysis of the CheckMate 214 trial, which compared the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab with sunitinib for the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. The ipi-nivo combination is approved for the frontline treatment of intermediate and poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma based on the primary analysis of the CheckMate 214 trial, which demonstrated a higher response rate and longer overall survival compared with sunitinib. Today's presentation provided the final safety and efficacy results for the trial with long-term follow-up of more than 9 years.  The intent-to-treat (ITT) population in this trial comprised 550 patients randomized to nivo and ipi versus 546 who received sunitinib. The final analysis showed sustained long-term benefit for the combination therapy. Patients given nivolumab plus ipi had a 29% reduction in the risk for death compared with sunitinib. For patients with intermediate or poor-risk disease, there was a 31% reduction in the risk of death.   The probability of remaining in response through 8 years was more than doubled with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in the ITT population at 48% versus 19%, and in the intermediate and poor-risk population at 50% versus 23%. The other important observation is that patients with favorable-risk disease appeared to have a 20% reduction in the risk for death at 9 years and more durable responses. This suggests a possible delayed benefit for ipi and nivo in this group since these differences were not seen in the earlier analysis.   No new safety signals emerged with longer follow-up, and the results confirm the use of ipi and nivo as a standard front-line combination therapy in this disease. Since this combination has been in widespread use for some years, the results are not surprising although the subgroup analysis suggesting benefit in favorable-risk patients is likely to inform practice in the future.   Today's second abstract is number is 8506, which was presented by Dr. Tony Mok from the Chinese University of Hong Kong, describing results from the phase 3 HERTHENA-Lung02 trial. This trial compared the antibody-drug conjugate patritumab deruxtecan with platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer following a third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI).  Patritumab deruxtecan, also known as HER3-DXd, comprises a fully human anti-HER3 IgG3 monoclonal antibody conjugated to a topoisomerase 1 inhibitor payload, and showed activity in a previous phase 2 trial in patients relapsing after EGFR TKI and chemotherapy.   In this phase 3 study, this agent was compared with platinum-based chemotherapy in eligible patients with an EGFR-activating mutation who had previously received 1 or 2 EGFR TKIs, at least one of which was a third-generation drug, with relapse or progression after this therapy. Five hundred and eighty-six patients were enrolled, with progression-free survival as the primary endpoint.  The primary analysis showed a 9-month progression-free survival of 29% for the experimental arm compared with 19% for platinum-based chemotherapy, for a hazard ratio of 0.77 and a P value of 0.011. With higher progression-free survival rates at 6 months and 12 months, HER3-DXd also had a better objective response rate (35.2% versus 25.3%) compared with platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC), and HER3-DXd also extended intracranial progression-free survival compared with PBC in patients with brain metastases, with a hazard ratio of 0.75. Grade 3 or more treatment-related adverse events occurred in 73% of patients treated with HER3-DXd and 57% of patients who received PBC. HER3-DXd had a higher rate of grade or more 3 thrombocytopenia, and drug-related interstitial lung disease occurred in 5% of patients in the HER3-DXd arm.   The follow-up will need more time to mature since no overall survival data are currently available, but definitely an agent to watch with interest. Moving on to today's final abstract, 8500, was presented by Dr. Pasi Jänne from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, describing results from the phase 2 portion of the KRYSTAL-7 study. This study is exploring the use of a potent KRAS inhibitor, adagrasib, in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced or metastatic KRASG12C- mutated non-small cell lung cancer.  Adagrasib has already received accelerated approval in the U.S. for previously treated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with a KRASG12C mutation. A previous report from the KRYSTAL-7 study demonstrated encouraging activity in combination with pembrolizumab in the frontline setting for this patient group who also had more than 50% expression of PD-L1. The presentation today described efficacy and safety data for this drug combination across all PD-L1 expression levels.  One hundred and forty-nine patients with a median age of 67 years were treated with the combination, 104 of whom had PD-L1 expression level results available, representing the so-called biomarker population in this trial. The overall response rate for the entire study population was 44%. In the biomarker population, the overall response rate ranged from 36% in those with less than 1% PD-L1 expression to 61% for those with more than 50% expression. For all patients, the median response duration was just over 26 months, and the median progression-free and overall survival rates were 11 and 18.3 months respectively.    For the biomarker population, the median progression-free and overall survival were highest in those patients with more than 50% PD-L1. No new safety issues emerged from this analysis; the most frequent toxicities were nausea, diarrhea, and increases in transaminases. Immune-related toxicities included pneumonitis, hypothyroidism, and hepatitis. These are important results and the results of the phase 3 portion of KRYSTAL-7, which compares first-line therapy with adagrasib plus pembro versus pembro alone in the KRASG12C mutated/PD-L1 more than 50% group, will be informative. For those patients with lower levels of PD-L1 expression, the authors suggest that the treatment escalation may be beneficial, possibly including the addition of chemotherapy.  That concludes today's report. Thanks for listening and I hope you will join me again tomorrow to hear more top takeaways from ASCO25. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.  Disclaimer:  The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  Find out more about today's speaker:    Dr. John Sweetenham    Follow ASCO on social media:     @ASCO on Twitter    @ASCO on Bluesky    ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures:   Dr. John Sweetenham:    No relationships to disclose

Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 2 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including new data on the treatment of ER+/HER2-negative breast cancer and potentially practice-changing results for patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma at high risk of recurrence.  Transcript Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, your host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast, welcoming you to our special coverage of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Today, I'll be bringing you my takeaways on selected abstracts from Day 2 of the Meeting. My disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Today's selection features important, new data on the treatment of ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, the use of tumor treating fields in combination with chemotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer, and potentially practice-changing results for patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma at high-risk of recurrence.  Our first selected abstract is LBA1000. This important phase 3 study was presented by Dr. Erika Hamilton from the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville and evaluated the use of a novel agent, vepdegestrant, in patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer, which had progressed after first-line endocrine therapy. Vepdegestrant is a selective oral PROTAC estrogen receptor degrader, which targets wild-type and mutant estrogen receptor through a novel mechanism of action which directly harnesses the ubiquitin-proteasome system to degrade ER. It has potential advantages over fulvestrant, a selective ER degrader which has to be administered intramuscularly and has limited benefit in patients who progress after endocrine therapy plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor.  Building on the encouraging results from the initial phase 1/2 study of vepdegestrant, Dr. Hamilton reported results from the VERITAC-2 global phase 3 trial, comparing this agent with fulvestrant. The patients in the study had already received treatment with hormone therapy and a CDK inhibitor and were randomly assigned to receive treatment with either vepdegestrant (313 patients) or fulvestrant (311 patients). The vepdegestrant was taken orally each day, while the fulvestrant was given intramuscularly on days 1 and 15 of the first cycle of treatment and day 1 of each subsequent treatment cycle. Patients were stratified by the presence of wild-type ER or ESR1 mutation. A total of 43.3% of patients had ESR1 mutations; 136 of those were in the vepdegestrant group and 134 in the fulvestrant group.   For patients with ESR1 mutations, vepdegestrant significantly increased progression-free survival compared with fulvestrant. For patients who received vepdegestrant, the median PFS was 5 months versus 2.1 months for those who received fulvestrant. The clinical benefit rate was 42.1% in the vepdegestrant group vs. 20.2% in the fulvestrant group. The overall response rate was 18.6% in the vepdegestrant group compared with only 4% in the fulvestrant group.  The PFS and response benefits of vepdegestrant were largely restricted to the population with ESR1 mutations. Overall survival data are currently immature. The safety profile was favorable, with fewer than 5% of patients having dose reductions or discontinuation due to toxicity. The most frequent toxicities were fatigue, nausea, and elevated transaminases.  The authors concluded that oral vepdegestrant demonstrates statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival compared with fulvestrant in this group of patients with ESR1-mutated ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer who have progressed after endocrine therapy and a CDK inhibitor. Patients with recurrent disease in this context are now routinely tested for ESR1 mutations, and this agent is for sure a potential treatment option for them.  The next study on today's episode, LBA4005, reports on the use of tumor treatment fields for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Tumor treatment fields are electric fields which disrupt cell division and may also induce an enhanced immune response, using a non-invasive portable device attached to the skin, and are already approved for the treatment of some cancers, including GBM and non-small cell lung cancer. A previous phase 2 trial, PANOVA-2, confirmed the feasibility and safety of using this approach in combination with gemcitabine plus or minus nabpaclitaxel in pancreatic cancer. In today's presentation, Dr. Vincent Picozzi from the Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle presented the results of the PANOVA-3 trial, a phase 3 study comparing gemcitabine and nabpaclitaxel with the same chemotherapy plus tumor treatment fields in patients with locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma.  Five hundred and seventy-one eligible patients were enrolled in the study with a total of 405 (198 in the treatment field group and 207 in the standard arm) comprising the modified intent- to-treat population. The duration of chemotherapy treatment was comparable in both study arms, and patients receiving treatment fields had a median exposure of almost 27 weeks.  Statistically significant improvements were observed for several study endpoints, including overall survival (a median of 16.2 versus 14.2 months), distant PFS (at 13.9 versus 11.5 months) and pain-free survival (at 15.2 versus 9.1 months), all in favor of the treatment fields arm. Although quality of life data were not reported in detail, the authors noted a significant improvement in global health status in the treatment fields arm. Safety data showed a higher level of skin adverse events in the treatment fields arm but were otherwise as expected for the GnP combination.  These are quite remarkable results which add to the growing evidence base for tumor treatment fields and are particularly compelling in this patient group given the substantial improvement in pain-free survival. It will be especially interesting to see the mature analysis of the quality-of-life endpoints in a subsequent report.  The final selection today is Abstract 6001, which describes the C-POST trial, a phase 3 trial of adjuvant cemiplimab versus placebo in patients with high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the skin. This study was presented by Dr. Danny Rischin from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.   Although surgical resection with or without adjuvant radiation is curative in 90% of patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, high-risk features, including nodal disease, skin and subcutaneous metastases, perineural invasion and bone involvement, predict for an inferior prognosis.  Cemiplimab, a PD-1 targeting antibody is standard therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease who are not candidates for curative surgical resection or radiation therapy, with an overall response rate of almost 50%.  The C-POST study evaluated the use of cemiplimab as adjuvant therapy following surgery and radiation in high-risk patients, compared with placebo. Treatment was administered at 3-week intervals for 12 weeks, and then 6-week intervals for a further 36 weeks, with a primary endpoint of disease-free survival. Four hundred and fifteen patients were randomized in the study, 209 to cemiplimab and 206 to placebo. With median follow-up at 24 months, Dr. Rischin reported a highly significant improvement in disease-free survival for the cemiplimab arm, 49.4 months for placebo versus not reached for cemiplimab, with improvements also observed in the rates of locoregional recurrence and distant recurrence at 80% and 60% reductions, respectively. No new safety signals were observed.  This study is potentially practice-changing and provides strong evidence that cemiplimab should be considered the new standard of care in this clinical context.  Thanks for listening today and join me again tomorrow to hear more top takeaways from ASCO25. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.  Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speaker:   Dr. John Sweetenham   Follow ASCO on social media:    @ASCO on Twitter   @ASCO on Bluesky   ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn    Disclosures:   Dr. John Sweetenham:   No relationships to disclose  

In the first episode of a special daily series during the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, Dr. John Sweetenham discusses the results of 2 studies on the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer plus an additional study exploring the association of Medicaid expansion with cancer survival outcomes. Transcript Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, and welcome to our special coverage of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. John Sweetenham, and I'll be bringing you brief analysis on selected abstracts from each day of the Meeting. My disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Today, I'll be reviewing three abstracts, the first two of which address the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. Today's first study is Abstract 3501. These data were presented by Dr. Heinz-Josef Lenz from the USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center and report on the expanded analysis of the CheckMate-8HW trial. This was a phase 3, international, multicenter trial in patients with MSI-high/MMR-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer, who were randomized between nivolumab (nivo) alone, nivolumab plus ipilumomab (ipi) or investigators' choice of chemotherapy (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI) with or without bevacizumab or cetuximab. The study showed that nivo plus ipi demonstrated superior progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy in the first-line setting and superior progression-free survival compared with nivo alone across all lines of therapy. These results led to the approval of nivo + ipi in the first-line setting in patients with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC in the U.S., the EU, and many other countries.  In today's presentation, Dr. Lenz reported on the expanded analyses of nivo plus ipi versus nivo across all lines of therapy and longer follow-up results for nivo and ipi versus chemo in the first-line setting. With longer follow up (the median is now at 47 months) nivo and ipi continued to show progression-free survival benefit compared with chemotherapy with a median PFS of 54.1 months versus 5.9 months, for a hazard ratio of 0.21.  Additionally, the analysis of the effects on PFS2, defined as the time from randomization to progression after subsequent systemic therapy, start of second subsequent systemic therapy, or death, showed that compared with chemotherapy, first-line nivo and ipi was associated with a 72% reduction in the risk of death or disease progression, despite the fact that 71% of those who progressed following chemotherapy crossed over to receive subsequent immunotherapy. The study also showed that across all lines, nivo and ipi demonstrated superior progression-free survival compared with nivo alone, the median not reached versus 39.3 months, for a hazard ratio of 0.62. No new toxicity signals emerged after further analysis. Most treatment-related adverse events with possible immune etiology were observed within the first six months of therapy. The results for PFS2 are particularly significant. Up to now, there has been some reluctance to use nivo and ipi as first-line therapy, partly because of its toxicity profile and based on the rationale that it would be active after other frontline therapies. The observation in this study that the beneficial effects of nivo and ipi are maintained downstream is compelling. The results suggest that delaying the use of this combination to the second line or later may compromise subsequent PFS and supports the use of nivo and ipi as a standard-of-care frontline option for MSI-H/dMMR metastatic colorectal cancer. Moving on, the next study I'm featuring today is Abstract 3503, presented by Dr. Jeanne Tie from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and the Walter and Eliza Hall Medical Institute of Medical Research from Melbourne, Australia. This study reported the impact of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)-guided adjuvant chemotherapy escalation in stage III colon cancer, focused on the primary analysis of the ctDNA-positive cohort from the randomized DYNAMIC-III trial. As background, about 30% of patients with stage III colon cancer will recur following standard-of-care adjuvant therapy with oxaliplatin-based regimens. And current data show that for those patients with high-risk disease, 6 months of chemotherapy is associated with a lower recurrence rate than 3 months. Circulating tumor DNA following initial surgery has been shown to be a strong independent prognostic factor for these patients, but questions remain about how ctDNA can be used for adaptation of treatment. Questions regarding treatment adaptation were addressed in the DYNAMIC-III trials – specifically, does treatment escalation benefit those who are ctDNA positive following surgery, and can therapy be de-escalated for those who are ctDNA negative. The first of these 2 questions – treatment escalation in the positive group – is the subject of this report. One thousand and two patients were randomized in this study, between ctDNA-informed therapy (502) or standard management (500). Of those patients included in the intent to treat cohorts, 129 were ctDNA positive in the ctDNA-informed arm compared with 130 in the standard management arm. Various pre-planned treatment escalation protocols were used, depending on the choice of first-line therapy. With a median follow up of 42.2 months, there was no difference in 3-year relapse free survival between the ctDNA informed group (48%) and the standard management group (52%). There was, however, a highly significant difference in relapse-free survival for patients who cleared ctDNA by the end of treatment compared with those who didn't. The authors concluded that the recurrence risk for this group remains high, at about 50%, after adjuvant therapy and that it increases with higher ctDNA burden, but treatment escalation didn't appear to reduce the recurrence risk. Clearance of ctDNA was associated with a favorable outcome, suggesting that as more effective treatments are developed in the future for this group, ctDNA will likely prove to have major utility. Changing gears now, my final selection for today is Abstract 11006, presented by Dr. Elizabeth Shafer from the American Cancer Society. This study explored the association of Medicaid expansion with 5-year survival after a cancer diagnosis.  Dr. Schafer began her presentation by providing some historical perspective on the impact of the Affordable Care Act on reducing the number of uninsured adults aged less than 65 years in the United States. She then reviewed some recent data on the impact of Medicaid expansion on cancer care, including improved screening rates, improved access to cancer surgery, and an increase in earlier cancer diagnosis. The current study builds on earlier data from the American Cancer Society which showed improved 2-year overall survival for patients with newly diagnosed cancer following Medicaid expansion. The new study reported by Dr. Schafer examined 5-year cause-specific survival in individuals with cancer since Medicaid expansion, analyzed according to cancer type and various demographic and social factors. Using data from more than 813,000 individuals from 26 states that expanded Medicaid compared with more than 610,000 from 12 states that did not, the authors reported that similar improvements in 5-year cause-specific survival were observed in the expansion and the non-expansion states, but when analyzed by other factors, differences in outcome emerged. For example, although similar improvements in survival between expansion and non-expansion states were seen in urban communities, there was a significant improvement of 2.55 percentage points in survival for individuals in rural communities in expansion states compared with those in non-expansion states. Similar trends were observed in high poverty areas, where improvements in survival were superior in expansion versus non-expansion states.  When examined by cancer type, the authors observed greater improvements in 5-year survival for those with pancreatic, lung, and colorectal cancer, possibly due to improvements in screening and early access to treatment.  The authors concluded that those residing in rural and high-poverty areas experienced the most improvement in cause-specific cancer survival following Medicaid expansion. In summary, it's encouraging to see an improving trend in cancer mortality overall, independent of Medicaid expansion, but it's also important to remember that this is yet another study which confirms how implementation of the ACA has improved cancer outcomes and begun to address some of the disparities in cancer care. Join me again tomorrow to hear more top takeaways from ASCO25. And if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.   Disclaimer:   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.     Find out more about today's speaker:  Dr. John Sweetenham    Follow ASCO on social media:  @ASCO on Twitter  @ASCO on Bluesky  ASCO on Facebook  ASCO on LinkedIn        Disclosures:  Dr. John Sweetenham:  No relationships to disclose 

Dr. John Sweetenham and Dr. Erika Hamilton discuss top abstracts that will be presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including research on tech innovations that could shape the future of oncology. Transcript Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. John Sweetenham, and I'm delighted to be joined today by Dr. Erika Hamilton, a medical oncologist and director of breast cancer and gynecologic cancer research at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tennessee. Dr. Hamilton is also the chair of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting Scientific Program, and she's here to tell us about some of the key abstracts, hot topics, and novel approaches in cancer care that will be featured at this year's Annual Meeting. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Hamilton, it's great to have you on the podcast today, and thanks so much for being here. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Thanks, Dr. Sweetenham. I'm glad to be here. Dr. John Sweetenham: Dr. Hamilton, the Presidential Theme of the Annual Meeting this year is ‘Driving Knowledge to Action: Building a Better Future,' and that's reflected in many of the sessions that will focus on action-oriented guidance to improve care for our patients. And as always, there'll be great presentations on practice-changing abstracts that will change treatment paradigms and transform care. Can you tell us about some of the hot topics this year and what you're particularly excited about? Dr. Erika Hamilton: You're right. Dr. Robin Zon's theme is ‘Driving Knowledge to Action: Building a Better Future,' and you're going to see that theme really interlaced throughout the ASCO program this year. We had a record number of submissions. Over 5,000 abstracts will be published, and there'll be about 3,000 presentations, either in oral format or poster presentations. We have 200 dynamic sessions. Many of the discussants will be highlighting key takeaways and how we can translate action-oriented guidance to better treat our patients to build a better future. Our state-of-the-art science will include a Plenary Session. This will feature presentations as well as discussion of each of the presentations for clinical late-breaking abstracts. We have Clinical Science Symposia that I'm particularly excited about this year. These will feature key abstracts as well as discussions and a foundational talk around the subject. We're covering novel antibody-drug conjugate targets, turning “cold” tumors “hot” to include CAR T, as well as the future of cancer detection. There'll be rapid oral abstracts, case-based panels, and this will also feature interactive audience polling and case discussions. I also want to highlight the community connection opportunities. There will be 13 Communities of Practice that will be meeting on-site during ASCO, and there's also really a plethora of networking opportunities for trainees and early-career professionals, a Women's Networking Center, a patient advocate space, and I'm happy to report there will also be live music out on the terrace this year at ASCO. Dr. John Sweetenham: Well, that's going to be a really great addition. I have to say, I think this is always a special time of year because excitement starts to mount as the meeting gets closer and closer. And once the abstracts are out there, I certainly personally feel that the excitement builds. Talking of abstracts, let's dive into some of the key abstracts for this year's meeting. I'd like to start out by asking you about Abstract 505. This reports on 15-year outcomes for women with premenopausal hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer in the SOFT and TEXT trials. It assesses the benefits of adjuvant exemestane and ovarian function suppression or tamoxifen and ovarian function suppression. So, could you talk us through this and tell us what you think the key takeaways from this abstract are? Dr. Erika Hamilton: Absolutely. This is essentially the SOFT and TEXT trials. They are trials that we've been following for quite some time, evidenced by the 15-year outcome. And I think it really answers two very important questions for us regarding adjuvant endocrine therapy for patients that are facing hormone receptor-positive disease. The benefit of ovarian function suppression for one, and then second, the benefit of exemestane over tamoxifen, which is our SERM [selective estrogen receptor modulator]. So, in terms of the SOFT trial, when we talk about distance recurrence-free interval, which I really think is probably the most meaningful because secondary cancers, et cetera, are not really what we're getting at here. But in terms of distant recurrence-free interval, certainly with tamoxifen, using tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression adds a little bit. But where we really get additional benefits are by moving to exemestane, an aromatase inhibitor with the ovarian function suppression. So, for example, in SOFT, for distant recurrence-free interval for patients that have received prior chemotherapy, the distance recurrence-free interval was 73.5% with tamoxifen, bumped up just a tiny bit to 73.8% with ovarian function suppression. But when we used both ovarian function suppression and switched to that aromatase inhibitor, we're now talking about 77.6%. It may seem like these are small numbers, but when we talk about an absolute benefit of 4%, these are the type of decisions that we decide whether to offer chemotherapy based on. So, really just optimizing endocrine therapy really can provide additional benefits for these patients. Just briefly, when we turn to TEXT, similarly, when we look at distance recurrence-free interval for our patients that are at highest risk and receive chemotherapy, tamoxifen and ovarian function suppression, 79%; 81% with exemestane and ovarian function suppression. And when we talk about our patients that did not receive chemotherapy, it increased from 91.6% up to 94.6%—very similar that 3% to 4% number. So, I think that this is just very important information when counseling our patients about the decisions that they're going to make for themselves in the adjuvant setting and how much we want to optimize endocrine therapy. Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks so much for your insight into that. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Yeah, absolutely. So, let's turn to hematologic malignancies. Abstract 6506 reports exciting results on the new agent ziftomenib in relapsed/refractory NPM1-mutant acute myeloid leukemia. This is a phase 1b clinical activity study and safety results. This was the pivotal KOMET-001 study. And my question is, will this new agent fulfill an unmet need in this NPM1 space? Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, great question. And I think the answer is almost certainly ‘yes'. So, just as some brief background, NPM1 mutation is known to be a driver of leukemogenesis in around 30% of patients with AML, and it's a poor prognostic factor. And typically, about 50% of these patients will relapse within a year of their first-line therapy, and only around 10% of them will get a subsequent complete remission with salvage therapy. Menin inhibitors, which disrupt the interaction between menin and KMT2A, are known to be active in NPM1-mutated as well as in KMT2A-rearranged AML. And ziftomenib is a selective oral menin inhibitor, which in this study was evaluated at a dose of 600 mg once a day, as you mentioned, a phase 1b/2 study, which is multicenter and presented by Dr. Eunice Wang from Roswell Park. It's a relatively large study of 112 patients who were treated with this standard dose with relatively short median follow-up at this time. The median age was 69 years, and median prior therapies were two, but with a range of one to seven. And I think very importantly, 60% of these patients had previously been treated with venetoclax, and 23% of them had had a prior transplant. Looking at the results overall for this study, the overall response rate was 35%, which is actually quite impressive. Specifically for those patients in the phase 2 part of the study, around 23% achieved a CR [complete remission] or CRh [complete remission with partial hematologic recovery]. What's very interesting in my mind is that the response rates were comparable in venetoclax-naive and venetoclax-exposed patients. And the drug was very well tolerated, with only 3% of patients having to discontinue because of treatment-related adverse events. And I think the authors appropriately conclude that, first of all, the phase 2 primary endpoint in the study was met, and that ziftomenib achieved deep and durable responses in relapsed and refractory NPM1-mutated AML, regardless of prior venetoclax, with good tolerance of the drug. And so, I think putting all of this together, undoubtedly, these data do support the potential use of this agent as monotherapy and as a new option for those patients who have relapsed or refractory NPM1-mutated acute myeloid leukemia. So, let's move on a little bit more now and change the subject and change gears completely and talk about circulating tumor DNA [ctDNA]. This has been a hot topic over a number of years now, and at this year's meeting, there are quite a few impactful studies on the use of ctDNA. We have time to focus on just one of these, and I wanted to get your thoughts on Abstract 4503. This is from the NIAGARA trial, which looks at ctDNA in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer who receive perioperative durvalumab. Could you tell us a little bit about this study? Dr. Erika Hamilton: So, this was the phase 3 NIAGARA trial, and this is literally looking for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer that are cisplatin-eligible, and the addition of durvalumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. So here, this is a planned exploratory analysis of ctDNA and the association with clinical outcomes from NIAGARA. So, this is really the type of study that helps us determine which of our patients are more likely to have a good outcome and which of our patients are more likely not to. There were 1,000 randomized patients in this study, and 462 comprised the biomarker-evaluable population. There were about half in the control arm and half in the durvalumab arm. And overall, the ctDNA-positive rate at baseline was about 57%, or a little over half, and that had decreased to about 22% after neoadjuvant treatment. ctDNA clearance rates from baseline to pre-radical cystectomy was about 41% among those with durvalumab and 31% among those in control. And the non-pCR rate was 97% among patients with pre-cystectomy ctDNA-positive status. So, this really gives us some information about predicting who is going to have better outcomes here. We did see a disease-free survival benefit with perioperative durvalumab, and this was observed in post-cystectomy ctDNA-positive as well as the ctDNA-negative groups. Shifting gears now to GI cancer, Abstract 3506 is a long-term safety and efficacy study of sotorasib plus panitumumab and FOLFIRI for previously treated KRAS G12C-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. And this is the CodeBreaK-101 study. What are your thoughts on this study? Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, thanks. A very interesting study, and this abstract builds upon the phase 3 CodeBreaK-300 trial, which I think has just been published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. This showed that the combination of sotorasib and panitumumab improved clinical outcomes in patients with chemorefractory KRAS G12C-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. The current abstract, as you mentioned, reports the CodeBreaK-101 trial. And this was a phase 1b trial where FOLFIRI therapy was added to sotorasib and panitumumab in previously treated patients with KRAS G12C-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. The abstract reports the overall and progression-free survival results, as well as some updated safety and response data. So, in this study, patients with this particular mutation who had received at least one prior systemic treatment but were KRAS G12C inhibitor-naive were enrolled into an expansion cohort of the CodeBreaK-101 protocol. And these patients received what apparently now recommended as the standard phase 2 dose of sotorasib of 960 mg daily, plus panitumumab and a standard dose of FOLFIRI. And the primary endpoint of the study was safety, and secondary endpoints included confirmed response, overall response, and progression-free survival, as assessed by the investigator. And by November of last year, 40 patients had been enrolled into this study. Common treatment-related adverse events were cutaneous; some patients developed neutropenia, and stomatitis was fairly widespread. Discontinuation of sotorasib because of adverse events was only seen in 1% of patients, although patients did have to discontinue because of toxicity from some of the other agents in the combination. Looking at the results of this study, the updated objective response rate was 57.5%, and the disease control rate was estimated at 92%, going on 93%, with a median time to response of 1.6 months and a median response duration of 6 months. After a median follow-up of 29.2 months, the median progression-free survival was 8.2 months, and the overall survival 17.9 months. So, the authors have concluded that this combination, including sotorasib, panitumumab, and FOLFIRI, does appear to show quite promising long-term efficacy in pretreated patients with this specific mutation. The ongoing phase 3 study they mentioned, CodeBreaK-301, is aiming to evaluate this combination against the standard of care in the first-line setting for patients with KRAS G12C-mutated colorectal cancer. So, promising results, and we'd be very interested to see how this particular combination performs in the frontline. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Fantastic. Thanks so much for sharing that. Let's shift gears again and really talk about digital technology. I feel that we're all going to have to get much better with this, and really, there are a lot of promises for our patients coming here. There are a lot of abstracts at ASCO that are focusing on innovations in digital technology, including a really interesting psychosocial digital application for caregivers of patients that are undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Can you tell us a little bit about this? It's Abstract 11000. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely. This abstract certainly caught my eye, and I think it's intriguing for a number of reasons, partly because it's app-based, and partly also because it specifically addresses caregiver burden and caregiver needs in the oncology setting, which I think is especially important. And although the context, the clinical context of this study, is hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, I think it has potential applications way beyond that. We all know that caregivers of patients undergoing stem cell transplantation have significant quality-of-life struggles. They are well-documented to have significant psychological and emotional strain before, during, and after stem cell transplantation. And this abstract describes an application called BMT-CARE, which is aimed at improving caregivers' quality of life, caregiver burden, mood symptoms, and coping skills, and so on. So, this was a single-center, randomized trial from MGH [Massachusetts General Hospital] of this app for stem cell transplant caregivers, compared with usual care in those individuals. And the eligible patients, or eligible individuals, were adults caring for patients with heme malignancy undergoing either an autologous or an allogeneic stem cell transplant. Patients were randomly assigned either to use the app or for usual care. And the app itself—and I think it'll be interesting to actually see this at the meeting and visualize it and see how user-friendly and so on it is—but it comprises five modules, which integrate psychoeducation, behavior change, stress management, and they're delivered through a kind of interactive platform of educational games and videos. And then participants were self-reporting at baseline and then 60 days after transplant. So, around 125 patients were enrolled in this study, of around 174 who were initially approached. So, just over 70% uptake from caregivers, which is, I think, relatively high, and evenly distributed between the two randomized arms. And the majority of the participants were spouses. And at 60 days post-stem cell transplant, the intervention participants reported a better quality of life compared with those who received usual care. If you break this down a little bit more, these participants reported lower caregiving burden, lower incidence of depression, fewer PTSD symptoms, and overall better coping skills. So, the authors conclude that this particular app, a digital health intervention, led to pretty substantial improvements in quality of life for these caregivers. So, intriguing. As I said, it'll be particularly interesting to see how this thing looks during the meeting. But if these kind of results can be reproduced, I think this sort of application has potential uses way beyond the stem cell transplant setting. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Yeah, I find that just so fascinating and very needed. I think that the caregiving role is often underestimated in how important that is for the patient and the whole family, and really giving our caregivers more tools in their toolbox certainly is quite helpful. Dr. John Sweetenham: Absolutely. Well, the meeting is getting closer, and as I mentioned earlier, I think anticipation is mounting. And I wanted to say thanks so much to you for chatting with me today about some of the interesting advances in oncology that we're going to see at this year's meeting. There is a great deal more to come. Our listeners can access links to the studies we've discussed today in the transcript of this episode. I'm also looking forward, Dr. Hamilton, to having you back on the podcast after the Annual Meeting to dive into some of the late-breaking abstracts and some of the other key science that's captured the headlines this year. So, thanks once again for joining me today. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Thanks so much for having me. Pleasure. Dr. John Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. Be sure to catch my “Top Takeaways from ASCO25.” These are short episodes that will drop each day of the meeting at 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time. So, subscribe to the ASCO Daily News Podcast wherever you prefer to listen, and join me for concise analyses of the meeting's key abstracts.   Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   More on today's speakers: Dr. John Sweetenham   Dr. Erika Hamilton @erikahamilton9   Follow ASCO on social media:  @ASCO on Twitter  ASCO on Bluesky  ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures:     Dr. John Sweetenham:     No relationships to disclose  Dr. Erika Hamilton: Consulting or Advisory Role (Inst): Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Mersana, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Ellipses Pharma, Olema Pharmaceuticals, Stemline Therapeutics, Tubulis, Verascity Science, Theratechnologies, Accutar Biotechnology, Entos, Fosun Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Medical Pharma Services, Hosun Pharma, Zentalis Pharmaceuticals, Jefferies, Tempus Labs, Arvinas, Circle Pharma, Janssen, Johnson and Johnson   Research Funding (Inst): AstraZeneca, Hutchison MediPharma, OncoMed, MedImmune, Stem CentRx, Genentech/Roche, Curis, Verastem, Zymeworks, Syndax, Lycera, Rgenix, Novartis, Millenium, TapImmune, Inc., Lilly, Pfizer, Lilly, Pfizer, Tesaro, Boehringer Ingelheim, H3 Biomedicine, Radius Health, Acerta Pharma, Macrogenics, Abbvie, Immunomedics, Fujifilm, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Merus, Nucana, Regeneron, Leap Therapeutics, Taiho Pharmaceuticals, EMD Serono, Daiichi Sankyo, ArQule, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, CytomX Therapeutics, InventisBio, Deciphera, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, Zenith Epigentics, Arvinas, Harpoon, Black Diamond, Orinove, Molecular Templates, Seattle Genetics, Compugen, GI Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Dana-Farber Cancer Hospital, Shattuck Labs, PharmaMar, Olema Pharmaceuticals, Immunogen, Plexxikon, Amgen, Akesobio Australia, ADC Therapeutics, AtlasMedx, Aravive, Ellipses Pharma, Incyte, MabSpace Biosciences, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pionyr, Repetoire Immune Medicines, Treadwell Therapeutics, Accutar Biotech, Artios, Bliss Biopharmaceutical, Cascadian Therapeutics, Dantari, Duality Biologics, Elucida Oncology, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Relay Therapeutics, Tolmar, Torque, BeiGene, Context Therapeutics, K-Group Beta, Kind Pharmaceuticals, Loxo Oncology, Oncothyreon, Orum Therapeutics, Prelude Therapeutics, Profound Bio, Cullinan Oncology, Bristol-Myers Squib, Eisai, Fochon Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, Inspirna, Myriad Genetics, Silverback Therapeutics, Stemline Therapeutics

Dr. John Sweetenham, Dr. Larry Shulman, and Dr. Rebecca Maniago discuss the integration of clinical pathways and decision support tools into the cancer center workflow, challenges to implementation at the point of care, and the promise of AI to further unlock these tools for clinicians. TRANSCRIPT Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Over the last decade or so, there has been a great deal of work and a lot of discussion about the implementation of oncology clinical care pathways at the point of care, which are designed to reduce variability in care, reduce costs, and improve the quality of care and outcomes. Although clinical pathways aim to guide treatment decisions, current data suggests that the utilization of these pathways at the point of care is very low. There are many reasons for this, which we will get into on the episode today.   My guests today are Dr. Larry Shulman and Rebecca Maniago. Dr. Shulman is a professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center. He's also the immediate past chair of the Commission on Cancer and serves on the National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. Rebecca Maniago is the director of clinical oncology at Flatiron Health, a technology platform that collects and analyzes real-world clinical data from electronic health records to facilitate decision making and research.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Larry and Rebecca, welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast and many thanks for being here.  Dr. Larry Shulman: Thank you, John.  Rebecca Maniago: Thank you for having me.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Larry, I'm going to start out, if I may, with a question for you. You and I, in a previous podcast, have discussed some of these issues regarding pathway implementation before. But to start out with, it's certainly, I think, helpful for the listeners to remind us all of what are the benefits of oncology clinical pathways and why are we still talking about this 10 years or more on.  Dr. Larry Shulman: Yeah, and that's a great question, John. I think the good news is, and all of us who live in the oncology sphere know this, that there's been tremendous progress in cancer therapies over the last decade. But what that has entailed is the introduction of many new therapies. Their complexity is becoming really very tough for people to manage.  And so what we have are oncologists who are really trying to do their best to deliver care to patients that will give them the best chance for survival and quality of life. But it's really, really hard to keep up with everything that's happening in oncology in the context of what we all know is a very busy clinic schedule. Lots of patients coming through and decisions need to be made quickly. Pathways really could help us to guide us into recommending and delivering the best therapies for our patients for a particular disease. You know, cancer is complicated. There are many different types and there are many different therapies. It's just a lot to deal with without some assistance from pathways or pathway tools.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Larry. So, knowing that's the case and knowing that these tools reduce variability, improve costs, improve quality of care as well. Starting with you again, Larry, if I may, why do you think it's been so difficult for so many oncologists to use these pathways effectively at the point of care?  Dr. Larry Shulman: So, I just wanted to step back a little bit. There are very extensive guidelines that tell us what the best therapies are for really all of the cancers. These guidelines come from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network or NCCN and the American Society of Clinical Oncology or ASCO and other professional organizations. And they're there. They're there, in free information off their websites.  But the problem is how to translate those pretty dense documents into something that will work in the clinic for a patient, for the physician who's working in the electronic health record. And the tools that are available, and there are a number of tools that can integrate with electronic health records, are expensive. You need to purchase them from the vendor and there are yearly fees.  And they're also difficult to implement. You need to work with the vendor to integrate them into your own rendition of your electronic health record. And there's a lot of customization that needs to be done. So, it's a financial challenge and it's also a time challenge for people to integrate these tools into their workflow, into their electronic health records.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Larry. So speaking from my own past experience of pathway implementation, it certainly has been a major challenge for the reasons that you mentioned and also because of the, I think resistance may or may not be too strong a word, of many of the clinicians to use these for a number of reasons, part of which are the time it takes, part of which many of them feel that the pathways aren't really changing decisions that they might make anyway. So, you know, the uptake of pathway utilization, even in those centers which have been successful in getting something installed and plugged into their EHR, on the whole, hasn't been as good as it could have been. So maybe I'll turn to you, Rebecca, because I know that this is something that you've worked on a lot.  And it's a kind of double-barreled question. I think the first part of it is, you know, what do you think are the major roadblocks to high physician uptake in the use of these pathways platforms? And maybe you could talk a little bit about what the various software platforms do to make them more physician-friendly and to enhance utilization right on the front line.  Dr. Rebecca Maniago: Yeah, that's a great question. And so, you know, I've worked with a number of customers and physicians over the past five and a half years on implementing these pathways. And the number one pushback is really about the time it takes in the workflow. So, if I had a dollar for every time I heard “every click counts,” I'd be a rich person and it does come down to clicks. And so, you know, as a software vendor, we really have to focus on how do we reduce that friction?  How do we make sure that the clicks we are asking for are the ones that actually matter? And how do we continue to streamline that process? And so, you know, while there is a fine balance, because as part of a Pathways platform, at the end of the day, we do need to understand some data about that patient. You need to understand the clinical scenario so you can surface the right treatment recommendation, which means there is some amount of data capture that has to happen. In some circumstances, you know, we can pull some of that data in from the EHR.  But unfortunately, the reality is that a lot of that data is messy and it's sort of stuck in documents and unstructured places. And so it doesn't easily flow in, which means we rely on the provider to give us that information. And oftentimes they've already entered it other places. So what's more frustrating than entering data twice? But, you know, I do see a great opportunity here. And this is certainly where software companies are focused is with AI.  So, know, for, especially for this data aggregation, a lot of these AI tools can actually scan through the chart instead of relying on the physician to sort of manually skim through and aggregate and find all that pertinent information. That's what AI is really good at. And almost instantaneously, it can find the messy data that lives in those unstructured documents. And wouldn't it be nice if that was automatically populated within these applications so that really all we're asking of the clinician is to validate that that information is accurate. And then choose the treatment that cuts down on the number of clicks, it cuts down on frustration. You know, again, the physician will be the one that needs to make that decision. AI is not there to replace that, but it certainly has a great opportunity to reduce some of this manual documentation and the things that physicians find the most frustrating, especially as it relates to using these pathways tools.  Dr. John Sweetenham: One of the pretty common pushbacks that I heard during my time in a couple of institutions was, “Well, you know, I'm sitting here at the point of care with my patients and I already know what I want to do and how I'm going to treat that patient if it's not in the context of a clinical trial. So I don't need to go through, you know, X number of clicks to get me to where I know I'm going to be anyway.”  Does either of you have any thoughts about that? I think you've sort of partially answered it, but what do you think, Rebecca? Do you think that this is something that is more easily overcome-able, if that's even a word, than it was a few years back?  Rebecca Maniago: Yeah, I do. And I think this is where the customization comes into play. So while they may know what an appropriate treatment for their patient is, there are more options now than ever, which means at a local level, there may be multiple options that are clinically equivalent. And so when you think about things like payer pathways or drug margins as an organization, they have to drive some of that from within. But having the capability to do so can then start to sort of sell the value to the provider that, yes, you may know what you want to order for your patient, but would you consider something else if it was clinically equivalent, but it had other benefits to either the patient or the organization?  Dr. Larry Shulman: The other thing I would add to that, John, if I can jump in here is that the data is the data and the data shows us that guideline concordant care is not always prescribed to the US. And in fact, in some circumstances, the gaps between what should be prescribed and what is being prescribed are quite wide. So, you know, people feel like they're always doing the best job and making the best recommendations. And I think, you know, I think I am. But, you know, like many of my colleagues at academic cancer centers, I'm highly specialized. I only see patients with breast cancer. But many oncologists throughout the country are more generalists. They're seeing patients with multiple diseases. And it's harder for them to be completely on top of what the current recommendations are in any particular circumstance. Our diseases are complicated. They're getting more complicated all the time with molecular and genomic testing and subcategorizations of different cancers. So, I don't think that we can be too cocky about it, quite frankly. I think we ought to use technology that Rebecca describes for the tools and for AI to really help us. I think if we turn our backs on that, I think we're making a big mistake. You just got to look at the data. The data is pretty convincing.  Dr. John Sweetenham: You know ever since we started looking seriously at decision support through pathways a number of years ago, the word has always been around the payers role in this and the day will come where we are going to get reimbursed based on pathway and concordance and I'm not sure that that day has arrived. So I have a question for both of you in this regard actually. And the first of those is maybe I'll start with you for this part of it, Larry. Where do you think we are in that regard? And are you hearing more and more of payers starting to look at pathway compliance? And then on the other end of that, and maybe I'll ask Rebecca about this, is one of the other pushback issues that I used to experience from physicians I worked with was they may go through the pathways platform and come up with a treatment recommendation. The best example of this I can think might be that the recommendation might be a biosimilar. Let's just use that as an example. But the next stage in the process would be to find out whether the patient's insurance would actually cover that particular biosimilar, which opened up a whole new can of worms. So there are two kinds of payer aspects of that. Maybe Larry, I'll ask you to start off by talking about that kind of coverage issue. And then I'll ask Rebecca, if you have any thoughts about the flow the other way in terms of getting drugs approved and what we can do to help from an insurance perspective.  Dr. Larry Shulman: Sure, that's really an important point, John. Our current state of affairs with the payers and their attempt to be sure that we're providing responsible, guideline concordant care is the use of prior authorization processes, which are incredibly costly, both for the oncology practices and for the payers.  They have an army of nurses sitting at the phone talking to us in the oncology practices to decide whether they're going to pay for something. And frankly, generally, the payers will pay for things that are part of either the NCCN or ASCO or other professional organizations' guidelines. But you need to prove to them over the phone that in fact the patient qualifies for that.  We have actually had some experiments with some of the payers to prove that to them in different ways by auto transmission of data. And this would be a big savings for them and for us, it would take away some of the delays in therapy while we're waiting for prior authorizations to go through. And we shouldn't have to do this by phone.   The EHR and the pathway tools should aggregate the data, aggregate the potential treatment and be able to transmit those data to the payer. And if in fact it meets the appropriate criteria for guideline concordant care would be approved. Right now, it's a terrible, costly, timely manual process that they should be able to fix.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Larry. And have you, you know, from a broader perspective, so not thinking necessarily about individual patients and specific issues around prior authorization, have you seen any movement among the payers to kind of get more aggressive about this and say, okay, you know, we are going to want to see your numbers, we want to know how many of your physicians are now using their pathways platform and so on. Are you seeing any word that that might be happening? Because certainly a few years back, that was the word on the street, as it were, that this day was coming.  Dr. Lawrence Shulman: And that's the proposal that we've made to several of our payers. Let us give you the aggregate data. If our guideline concordance is above a certain level, give us a gold card, give us a pass, and we won't need to do pre-authorizations. We've actually done that at my institution in radiology. Aggregate data gives individual physicians that pass if their guideline concordance was appropriate. I got to pass. So I don't need to go through those radiology pre-authorizations for my patients. And I think we can do the same thing with therapeutics. It's been a little bit more cumbersome to do it, and there's some detailed reasons why that is. But that's really what they want to know. And the payers want to know that patients are getting guideline concordant care, but they also realize it's not going be 100%. There are always a few outlier patients who require some variation from the guidelines. But if we get above 80% guideline concordant care, I think many of the payers would be happy to accept that as long as we continue to feed them the data. And that's the case in our radiology process with one of the payers is, you know, I get a gold card, but they continue to look at my data. And if I don't continue to perform well, they'll take that away.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Larry. And Rebecca, just returning to you, this issue of prior authorization and facilitating life for the physician at the point of care in terms of knowing, you know, which specific treatment might be covered for a patient. Do you have any thoughts or maybe you could give us some insights on what software vendors are doing to facilitate that part of the process, the communication back to the payers to take some of that burden off the physician and the physician staff?  Rebecca Maniago: Yeah, absolutely. And this is a problem we've been trying to tackle for years. And it's not easy. We've tackled it in a couple ways. So first, we try to sort of link up to the payer portal where the information that was being attested to within the application could then be automatically sent. Because at the end of the day, the data points that are being collected to surface treatment recommendations ultimately are the same data points that the payer wants.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of data interoperability challenges within that space. So that was not something that was going to be sustainable. However, in current state, because as I mentioned, the customization is key for these products, focusing more on how can we allow practices to embed payer pathways within the application. So again, you kind of start with the backbone of your standard guidelines but then having the capability of adding in a payer pathway that will only show up as that preferred option for a patient who has that insurance, at least at the point of care, the provider sees what the insurer would then approve. So while it's not automatically assuring authorization, we are at least steering the decision in a direction where we think most likely this is going to be approved based upon the pathway that they have access to. So that sort of current state, I agree. We've been talking about this idea of gold carding for years.  Presumably the data is there today, right? Like we are able to capture structured data with every order placed to recognize concordance to Larry's point. All those reports are available to provide to payers. I just haven't seen a lot of practices have a lot of success when they tackle it on their own from that direction.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Right, thanks. Larry, you and I were at the NCCN annual meeting recently and I know that you've been quite heavily involved in the policy program and in the policy forums and so on at NCCN. Are you able to share anything from this year's meeting in terms of care pathways implementation and what you think might happen next in that regard?  Dr. Larry Shulman: NCCN, in my own opinion, has really led the way in defining what guideline concordant care is through their guidelines, which are very extensive, covering basically every cancer and every situation with every cancer. And it's really an astounding amount of amazing work that all of us use and the payers largely use as well. But they've increasingly understood that there's a gap between their guidelines and the implementation of their guidelines. And they are working on some things. They are working on the digitalization of their guidelines to make them more accessible, but also thinking about ways that they may, in fact, fit into the work processes that all of us have when we go to clinic.  They're acutely aware that the country is not where it needs to be in regard to a translation, if you will, of their guidelines in the practice. And I think we're all thinking really hard about whether there are things that we can team up to do, if you will, to try to close those gaps.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Great, thank you. Just switching gears a little bit back to you, if I can, Rebecca. I think you've said a little bit about this already. What do you think are the next steps that we need to take to more effectively implement these tools in the clinic? I think we've discussed a little bit some of the roadblocks to that. But where do you think we need to go next in terms of getting better use of these pathways?  Rebecca Maniago: Yeah, I will say one thing that we haven't really touched on is the pharmacy team. So the biggest blocker that I see is actually the pre-implementation. So there's a lot of focus on how do we get physicians to use this? How do we increase adoption? But often the first barrier is the regimen library. So no matter what the pathways platform is, the backbone of it will be those regimens. And so, really helping organizations and we partner with pharmacies, they're doing all the backend configuration. And so how can we make that piece of the technology easier for them to implement because that's really the lead up and there's a ton of cleanup and maintenance. You know, as a pharmacist, I empathize, but really that's where it all begins. And so I think, you know, continuing to focus on not only the front end user and the physician, but everybody that's going to be involved in order to make a pathway program successful needs to be, you know, at the table in the beginning, helping set up those processes and, and buying into the why this is important.  Dr. John Sweetenham: That's a great point.  Dr. Larry Shulman: So could I just jump in one quickly here, John? So pathways, as we've discussed, the tools are expensive. There is a person cost, as Rebecca is just describing, about customization and implementation. But there are very good data in the literature to show that when you follow pathways, care is less costly. Survival is better, which is obviously our primary goal, but also cost is less. And the payers can benefit from that. And the question is, can they figure out ways to use that to help to fund the purchase and maintenance of pathway products that will give their patients better care, but also less costly care? And so I think that is a potential solution. I've had that conversation with some payers as well. And it would be great to see that happen. I think that would be a huge step.  Rebecca Maniago: Yeah, we have some, if they're able to set it up in the right way and really optimize, you know, from the pharmacy perspective, we have practices who the application is more than, you know, paying for itself just by way of using it to the fullest potential that it has.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, that's a really great point. A couple of other more general questions. I'm going to start with you, Rebecca, and Larry ask you to respond as well. Are you hearing anything from patients around this issue? Are they aware or becoming more aware that pathways are being used in the clinic when they're seen by their physicians? And do they have a say, are there patient advocates involved in this part of the process? Rebecca, maybe you could start.  Rebecca Maniago: I haven't had as much exposure to that side of it. So, you know, I would love to hear what Larry thinks because most of my exposure is at the physician level, which of course they are the ones who are making the decision with the patient. So my assumption is that there is at least some level of understanding that there are options and that, you know, together let's decide on the best one for you. But again, I would love to hear what Larry has to say.  Dr. Larry Shulman: Yeah, so that's a really interesting question. I actually was discussing that at the cancer center last week, particularly around the utilization of AI in this process. And, you know, right now, as you know, if you submit a journal article or, you know, many other things, ask you whether you used AI to generate it. If in fact we use tools that include AI, we're not.  Are we obligated to tell the patient that you're making this recommendation together with computer assist, if you will, that helps you to make the recommendation you are making to them? Ultimately, I think it's the physician who's responsible for the choice, but should we disclose it? I have to tell you personally, I haven't thought about doing that. But I think it's a really, really good question is whether we should upfront tell the patients that we've had assistance in making the recommendations that we have.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Right, very interesting point. To close it out, one more question for both of you and again, it's the same one. Rebecca, to start with, we've all been, as I said right up front, talking and, you know, working on this issue for more than 10 years now. In 10 years from now, how would you like it to look and how do you think it might look?  Rebecca Maniago: Great question. I think we may get to where I would like to see it quicker than 10 years. I think AI provides a lot of opportunity and excitement. I'd love to turn a corner where physicians no longer see tools like this as a hindrance, rather they rely on them, they trust them, they help them get through their day. They continue to improve quality of care and reduce costs and patient burden. Obviously, that's the pipe dream, but I think we may get there before 10 years, given what I think AI is going to enable.  Dr. Larry Shulman: Yeah, I want to add to Rebecca's comments. One of the things that I worry about, and ASCO worries about a lot, is the oncology workforce, which is progressively strained in their attempts to care for all the cancer patients in the US. And for all of us who practice oncology, for many reasons, it's become more and more inefficient, whether it's use of the EHR, pre-authorization work, and so on.  And we really need to turn that around. We need to make practice not only better, which I think these tools can do, including AI, as Rebecca says, but make it much more efficient because that's going to allow us to both deliver more high-quality care to our patients, but also to care for more patients and have them benefit from our expertise and what we have to offer. So I think this is really an obligation on our part. I think it's an imperative that we move in this direction for both quality reasons and efficiency reasons.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Larry. Well, I've really enjoyed the conversation today and I think, you know, it's been great to think about some of the challenges that we still have in this regard. But it's also great to hear what I'm sensing is quite a lot of optimism about how things may play out over the next few years. And it does sound as if there's a lot of hard work going on to bring us to a point where the clinical decision support tools are going to truly support what our oncologists are doing and no longer be seen as an obstruction. So, I want to thank you both for sharing your insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast.  Dr. Larry Shulman: Thank you so much, John.  Rebecca Maniago: Thank you so much.  Dr. John Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.  Disclaimer:   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Find out more about today's speakers:  Dr. John Sweetenham  Dr. Lawrence Shulman  Rebecca Maniago  Follow ASCO on social media:  @ASCO on Twitter  @ASCO on Bluesky  ASCO on Facebook  ASCO on LinkedIn        Disclosures:  Dr. John Sweetenham:  No relationships to disclose    Dr. Lawrence Shulman:  Consulting or Advisory Role: Genetech     Rebecca Maniago:   No relationships to disclose.     

Dr. Vamsi Velcheti and Dr. Charu Aggarwal discuss the evolution of ctDNA as a critical tool in precision oncology and its implications for lung cancer management, including its potential role in the early-stage setting. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Hello. I am Dr. Vamsi Velcheti, your guest host for the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I am a professor of medicine and director of thoracic medical oncology at the Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health.  The management of small cell lung cancer has rapidly evolved over the past few decades, and today, molecular testing and biomarker testing for lung cancer are absolutely critical in terms of designing treatment options for our patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Today, I'm delighted to be joined by Dr. Charu Aggarwal for a discussion on ctDNA (circulating tumor DNA) and the role of ctDNA in lung cancer management. Dr. Aggarwal is the Leslye Heisler Professor of Lung Cancer Excellence and section chief of thoracic and head and neck oncology at University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center.  You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of that episode.  Dr. Agrawal, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Thank you for being here. Dr. Charu Aggarwal: Thank you for having me. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Let's start off with setting the stage for ctDNA technology. These technologies have rapidly evolved from experimental conceptual stage to essential clinical tools for day-to-day clinical practice. Could you briefly discuss how recent advancements in ctDNA technologies are shaping our approach to precision medicine, especially in lung cancer? Dr. Charu Aggarwal: Absolutely. And you know, I think we need to just level set a little bit. What exactly is circulating tumor DNA? This is a way to assess exactly that. Every tumor sheds little pieces of tumor-derived DNA into the bloodstream, and this occurs in a variety of solid tumors. But now we have the technology to be able to derive this DNA that's actually being shed from the tumor into the bloodstream, these minute fragments of DNA, take them out, amplify them and sequence them with a variety of different mechanisms. They can be DNA sequencing alone, they can be DNA and RNA sequencing, they can be whole transcriptome sequencing. The technology, as you rightly pointed out, Dr. Velcheti, has significantly improved from just being able to look at circulating tumor DNA to now being able to amplify it, sequence it, and use it to offer personalized therapy. I think lung cancer is definitely the poster child for such an approach as we have a lot of data that has shown clinical utility and validity of being able to use circulating tumor DNA next-generation gene sequencing to guide therapy. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: There have been so many technological leaps. It's really impressive how far we've come to advance these sequencing platforms. Recent advances with AI and machine learning are also playing important roles in interpreting ctDNA data. How are these computational advances really enhancing clinical decision-making in day-to-day clinical practice? Dr. Charu Aggarwal: I think while we have firmly established the role of ctDNA in the management of patients with metastatic lung cancer, some of the approaches that you talked about are still experimental. So let me backtrack a little bit and set the stage for how we use ctDNA in clinical practice right now. I think most patients, when they come in with a new diagnosis of stage IV lung cancer, we want to test for biomarkers. And this should actually be the established standard. Now included in the NCCN guidelines and actually also international guidelines, is to consider using blood-based testing or plasma-based testing to look for biomarkers, not just tissue-based testing which had been our historical standard, but to use these plasma guided approaches to identify the seven to nine biomarkers that may be truly implicated in either first- or second-line therapy that are called as your immediately actionable mutations.  What you're talking about is AI computational methods. I think there's a lot of excitement about how we can use genomic signatures that are derived from either tissue or ctDNA-based biomarker testing, combine it with radiomic features, combine it with histologic features, look at H & E patterns, use AI algorithmic learning to be able to actually predict recurrence scores, or can we actually come up with predictive signatures that may be extremely helpful?  So, I think some of the techniques and technologies that you're talking about are incoming. They are provocative. I think they're very exciting, but very early. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: I think it's really amazing how many advances we have with these platforms. You know, the challenge really is the significant gap in terms of uptake of molecular testing. Even today, in 2025, there are significant gaps in terms of all metastatic lung cancer patients being tested for all biomarkers.  So, why do you think there's such a challenge in testing patients with lung cancer? In most academic practices, we try to achieve 100% testing for all our patients, but we know from recent studies that that's not the case across the country. What do you think the gaps are? Dr. Charu Aggarwal: Biomarker testing is so essential, like you pointed out, for us to be able to guide the right therapy for our patients. And we see this in our practice every day as you and I see patients with lung cancer, that a large proportion of our patients either don't get tested or they start therapy before their test results come back. So, I think this is a real problem.  However, to add some optimism to this problem, I do think that we are making a move in the right direction. So, four or five years ago, there was a lot of data being presented at national meetings, including ones from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where we saw that, nationally, the rates of biomarker testing were probably in the rate of 40 to 50%. However, now with the availability of both tissue and plasma, I do think that the rates of biomarker testing are increasing. And if you were to survey a sample or even perform retrospective data research, I believe that the number is closer to 70% of all patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.  And you know, you asked why is it not 100%? I think there are many reasons. I think the number one reason is tissue availability. Many times, the biopsies are small, or the tumor is very necrotic. So, either the tissue quantity itself is small, or the tissue quantity is insufficient to perform gene sequencing. And that's exactly where plasma comes in. When you don't have tissue availability, we have shown, as have others, that you can use plasma effectively to increase the proportion of patients who are not only tested but also receive the right therapy. I think there are also other barriers, including inertia. You know, I think this is both patient and physician inertia, where patients want to get started quickly, they don't want to wait. Physicians are very busy and sometimes want to be able to deliver treatment as soon as possible. We have seen there are some institutional barriers. Not every institution has in-house gene sequencing testing. So how do you really operationalize, send out these tests in a fast, efficient manner so that you get results back? Is it a pathologist who sends out the test? Is it the medical oncologist? Is it the pulmonologist or the interventionalist? I think there is this need to develop reflex testing mechanisms which some institutions do really well and some don't. And then finally, there are financial implications as well. How do we do this in a most cost-efficient fashion?  So there are many barriers, but I'm happy to say that we are making a move in the right direction as we are understanding that it's important to do it, it's easy to do it maybe with a value add of plasma, and finally, as you said, you know, as these technologies become more available, they're actually getting more cost-effective. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Dr. Aggarwal, you've been at the cutting edge of these advanced platforms and testing. So, what do you do in UPenn? How do you handle all these barriers and what is your workflow for patients in University of Pennsylvania? Dr. Charu Aggarwal: One of the things that I mentioned to you was there may be institutional barriers when it comes to gene sequencing. So, we actually, several years ago now, instituted a very robust reflex testing paradigm where almost all of our patients, regardless of stage, with a non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer diagnosis, would automatically be reflexively sent to our molecular pathology lab where they would get gene sequencing both for the DNA as well as with an RNA fusion-based platform. And the reason we did this was because we wanted to expedite and reduce the turnaround time. We also wanted to ensure that we were not just doing DNA testing, which I think is really important for our listeners here. There are many fusions as well as certain skipping mutations like MET exon 14 that may be missed on DNA testing alone. So, it's really incredibly important to run both DNA and RNA samples.  So, we do this routinely, and based on our research and others, what we also do routinely is that we send concurrent tissue and liquid biopsies or plasma MGS testing upon initial diagnosis. For example, if a patient comes in with a diagnosis of stage IV non-small cell lung cancer, their tissue might already be at my molecular pathology lab based on the reflex mechanism that I just described to you. But upon their initial meeting with me, we will send off plasma. And I will tell you this, that Penn is not just one institution, right? We have a large network of sites. And as part of my research, one of the things that we wanted to do was implement wide scale means to improve biomarker testing. And we have done this with the use of technology like you mentioned, Dr. Velcheti: How can we actually use AI? How can we leverage our electronic medical record to identify these patients? So, we have a nudge-based mechanism which actually facilitates the pending of orders for biomarker testing for patients with new diagnosis of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. And we are looking at our rates of biomarker testing but also rates of completion of biomarker testing before first-line therapy started. So many of our participating sites are clusters for our randomized control trial to increase molecular testing. And I'm really excited about the fact that we're able to implement it not just at our main satellite, downtown Penn Hospital, but also across our community. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: I think that's great. Thank you so much for those insights, Dr. Aggarwal. I think it's so important because having the best technology is just not enough. I think implementation science is actually a real thing. And I think we need to all learn from each other, advance these things.  So, I want to ask you about the new emerging paradigm in terms of using ctDNA. Of course, in the metastatic setting, we've been using ctDNA for molecular profiling for a while now. But the recent data around monitoring early-stage disease, especially post-operative monitoring, is an exciting area. There are a lot of opportunities there. Could you please talk us through the emerging data in lung cancer and how do we incorporate ctDNA-based monitoring MRD or should we even do that right now? Is the data ripe enough for us to kind of deploy this in a clinical setting? Dr. Charu Aggarwal: I think using ctDNA in the early-stage setting is our next frontier in lung cancer. I think naturally we have been able to successfully deploy this in the stage 4 setting. It made a meaningful difference in the lives of our patients, and we are a little bit behind the A ball in terms of how MRD is used in lung cancer. Because, you know, colorectal cancer has already done large-randomized trials based on ctDNA and MRD. It's routinely used in hematological malignancy. So, it makes sense that we should start to use it.  However, when I say this, I say this with excitement, but also a little bit of gentle caution saying that we actually don't quite have the prospective randomized data just yet on how to deploy. Yes, intuitively we would say that if you detect ctDNA and MRD, that patient is at higher risk. So, we identify that, but we actually don't know what to do with the second part of that information once you identify a patient with high risk. Are there other techniques that we can then come in with or other drugs that we can come in with to modify that risk? And that's the thing that I think we don't have right now. The other thing that we don't have right now is the timing of the assay, when to use it. Is it to be tested in the pre-op setting? Is the post-op test the best timing, or is it monitoring and dynamics of ctDNA that are most important? And the third thing I will say in terms of precautionary cause is that we don't know which test just yet. There are actually a few commercially available tests out in the market right now. We know about them and I'm sure our community colleagues know about them. Some of them even have Medicare approval. However, many of these tests are currently tissue informed. We don't have tissue uninformed tests. And what does that mean? Tissue uninformed means that you actually take a piece of tumor tissue, you sequence that tumor and based on the gene profile of that tumor, you actually design a panel that can then be used to track the mutations in the blood-based pack. This requires, as the name implies, a tumor. So can this be used in the pre-op setting is a large question. Because coming back to the idea of tissue availability, you and I both know that when we get FNAS and we use it for PDL-1 testing and we use it for gene sequencing, there often isn't enough tissue left for us to then either do whole genome sequencing or even whole transcriptome sequencing, which may be required to build some of these assays.  I think the future lies in this idea of tumor uninformed assays because if we could go to a blood only or a plasma only approach using novel signatures like proteomics or methylation, I think that's where the future is. But we're still a little bit early in the discovery stages of those, as well as to come are the validation stages so that we can be confident that these blood-only assays may actually give us an answer.  So, with those three cautionary notes, I would say that optimism is still very high. I think ctDNA MRD is the right place to think about. We need to do this for our patients to better identify high-risk patients and to think about means to escalate treatment for them. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I completely agree, and I think with all the changes and evolution of treatments in the management of early-stage lung cancer now with neoadjuvant and adjuvant, there's really a need for an escalation and de-escalation of therapies post-operatively. And I think it's a huge opportunity. I think we all could learn from our colorectal colleagues. I think they've done a really good job at actually doing prospective trials in this setting. I think we're kind of a little behind here.  Dr. Charu Aggarwal: I think in the metastatic setting there are ongoing trials to look at this exact question. How do you choose an appropriate first-line therapy, a monitor ctDNA at the six-week trial? It's being evaluated in a trial called the “Shedders” trial, where if patients are still ctDNA positive at six weeks, then you can escalate treatment because they haven't “cleared” their ctDNA. There has been a lot of research that has shown that lack of ctDNA clearance in the metastatic setting may be a poor prognostic factor. We and others have shown that if you do clear your ctDNA or if you have a reduction in ctDNA load overall, that that is directly related to both an improved progression-free survival and overall survival. This has been shown with both tissue informed and uninformed assays. So I think it's very clear that yes, you can track it. I think the question is: Can you apply that data to the early-stage setting? And that's an open research question. A lot of groups are looking at that and I think it's completely reasonable, especially to determine duration of therapy, to determine optimal timing, optimal timing of scans even. And I think these are just such interesting questions that will be answered in the future. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: And also like a kind of early detection of resistance patterns that might inform early initiation of combination strategies. And I think it's a lot of opportunities I think yet to be explored. A lot of exciting things to come and I'm sure we'll kind of see more and more data in the next few years.  Dr. Aggarwal, thank you so much for sharing your fantastic insights today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. It's been a pleasure to have you on the podcast today. Hope to see you at ASCO. Dr. Charu Aggarwal: Thank you so much. This was great and I remain so excited by all of the possibilities to improve outcomes for our patients. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Thank you to all the listeners for your time today. If you value the insights that you hear from the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcast. Thank you so much. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers:  Dr. Vamsidhar Velcheti  @VamsiVelcheti  @vamsivelcheti.bsky.social Dr. Charu Aggarwal @CharuAggarwalMD   Follow ASCO on social media:  @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter)  ASCO on Bluesky ASCO on Facebook  ASCO on LinkedIn    Disclosures: Dr. Vamsidhar Velcheti:  Honoraria: Glavanize Therapeutics Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, GSK, Amgen, Taiho Oncology, Novocure, Takeda, Janssen Oncology, Picture Health, Regeneron Research Funding (Inst.): Genentech, Trovagene, Eisai, OncoPlex Diagnostics, Alkermes, NantOmics, Genoptix, Altor BioScience, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Atreca, Heat Biologics, Leap Therapeutics, RSIP Vision, GlaxoSmithKline  Dr. Charu Aggarwal: Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Regeneron/Sanofi, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, Arcus Biosciences, Gilead Sciences, Novocure, Abbvie Speakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca (an immediate family member) Research Funding (Inst): Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Lilly@Loxo, Candel Therapeutics  

Dr. Ebony Hoskins and Dr. Andreas Obermair discuss the surgical management of gynecologic cancers, including the role of minimally invasive surgery, approaches in fertility preservation, and the nuances of surgical debulking. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Ebony Hoskins: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast, I'm Dr. Ebony Hoskins. I'm a gynecologic oncologist at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC, and your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Today we'll be discussing the surgical management of gynecologic cancer, including the role of minimally invasive surgery (MIS), approaches in fertility preservation, and the nuances of surgical debulking, timing, and its impact on outcomes. I am delighted to welcome Dr. Andreas Obermair for today's discussion. Dr. Obermair is an internationally renowned gynecologic oncologist, a professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Queensland, and the head of the Queensland Center for Gynecologic Cancer Research. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Obermair, it's great speaking with you today. Dr. Andreas Obermair: Thank you so much for inviting me to this podcast. Dr. Ebony Hoskins: I am very excited.  I looked at your paper and I thought, gosh, is everything surgical? This is everything that I deal with daily in terms of cancer in counseling patients. What prompted this review regarding GYN cancer management? Dr. Andreas Obermair: Yes, our article was published in the ASCO Educational Book; it is volume 44 in 2024. And this article covers some key aspects of targeted precision surgical management principles in endometrial cancer, cervical cancer, and ovarian cancer. While surgery is considered the cornerstone of gynecologic cancer treatment, sometimes research doesn't necessarily reflect that. And so I think ASCO asked us to; so it was not just me, there was a team of colleagues from different parts of the United States and Australia to reflect on surgical aspects of gynecologic cancer care and I feel super passionate about that because I do believe that surgery has a lot to offer. Surgical interventions need to be defined and overall, I see the research that I'm doing as part of my daily job to go towards precision surgery. And I think that is, well, that is something that I'm increasingly passionate for. Dr. Ebony Hoskins: Well, I think we should get into it. One thing that comes to mind is the innovation of minimally invasive surgery in endometrial cancer. I always reflect on when I started my fellowship, I guess it's been about 15 years ago, all of our endometrial cancer patients had a midline vertical incision, increased risk of abscess, infections and a long hospital stay. Do you mind commenting on how you see management of endometrial cancer today? Dr. Andreas Obermair: Thank you very much for giving the historical perspective because the generation of gynecologic oncologists today, they may not even know what we dealt with, what problems we had to solve. So like you, when I was a fellow in gynecologic oncology, we did midline or lower crosswise incisions, the length of stay was, five days, seven days, but we had patients in hospital because of complications for 28 days. We took them back to the operating theaters because those are patients with a BMI of 40 plus, 45, 50 and so forth. So we really needed to solve problems. And then I was exposed to a mentor who taught minimal invasive surgery. And in Australia he was one of the first ones who embarked on that. And I can remember, I was mesmerized by this operation, like not only how logical this procedure was, but also we did rounds afterwards. And I saw these women after surgery and I saw them sitting upright, lipstick on, having had a full meal at the end of the day. And I thought, wow, this is the most rewarding experience that I have to round these patients after surgery. And so I was thinking, how could I help to establish this operation as standard? Like a standard that other people would accept this is better. And so I thought we needed to do a trial on this. And then it took a long time. It took a long time to get the support for the [LACE - Laparoscopic Approach to Cancer of the Endometrium] trial. And in this context, I just also wanted to remind us all that there were concerns about minimal invasive surgery in endometrial cancer at the time. So for example, one of the concerns was when I submitted my grant funding applications, people said, “Well, even if we fund you, wouldn't be able to do this trial because there are actually no surgeons who actually do minimally invasive surgery.” And at the time, for example, in Australia, there were maybe five people, a handful of people who were able to do this operation, right? This was about 20 years ago. The other concern people had was they were saying, could minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer, could that cause port side metastasis because there were case reports. So there were a lot of things that we didn't know anyway. We did this trial and I'm super happy we did this trial. We started in 2005, and it took five years to enroll. At the same time, GOG LAP2 was ramping up and the LACE trial and GOG LAP2 then got published and provided the foundations for minimally invasive surgery in endometrial cancer. I'm super happy that we have randomized data about that because now when we go back and now when people have concerns about this, should we do minimally invasive surgery in P53 mutant tumors, I'm saying, well, we actually have data on that. We could go back, we could actually do more research on that if we wanted to, but our treatment recommendations are standing on solid feet. Dr. Ebony Hoskins: Well, my patients are thankful. I see patients all the time and they have high risk and morbidly obese, lots of medical issues and actually I send them home most the same day. And I think, you know, I'm very appreciative of that research, because we obviously practice evidence-based and it's certainly a game changer. Let's go along the lines of MIS and cervical cancer. And this is going back to the LACC [Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer] trial.  I remember, again, one of these early adopters of use of robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery for radical hysterectomy and thought it was so cool. You know, we can see all the anatomy well and then have the data to show that we actually had a decreased survival. And I even see that most recent updated data just showing it still continued. Can you talk a little bit about why you think there is a difference? I know there's ongoing trials, but still interested in kind of why do you think there's a survival difference? Dr. Andreas Obermair:  So Ebony, I hope you don't mind me going back a step. So the LACC study was developed from the LACE trial. So we thought we wanted to reproduce the LACE data/LAP2 data. We wanted to reproduce that in cervix cancer. And people were saying, why do you do that? Like, why would that be different in any way? We recognize that minimally invasive radical hysterectomy is not a standard. We're not going to enroll patients in a randomized trial where we open and do a laparotomy on half the patients. So I think the lesson that really needs to be learned here is that any surgical intervention that we do, we should put on good evidence footing because otherwise we're really running the risk of jeopardizing patients' outcomes. So, that was number one and LACC started two years after LACE started. So LACC started in 2007, and I just wanted to acknowledge the LACC principal investigator, Dr. Pedro Ramirez, who at the time worked at MD Anderson. And we incidentally realized that we had a common interest. The findings came totally unexpected and came as an utter shock to both of us. We did not expect this. We expected to see very similar disease-free and overall survival data as we saw in the endometrial cancer cohort. Now LACC was not designed to check why there was a difference in disease-free survival. So this is very important to understand. We did not expect it. Like, so there was no point checking why that is the case. My personal idea, and I think it is fair enough if we share personal ideas, and this is not even a hypothesis I want to say, this is just a personal idea is that in endometrial cancer, we're dealing with a tumor where most of the time the cancer is surrounded by a myometrial shell. And most of the time the cancer would not get into outside contact with the peritoneal cavity. Whereas in cervix cancer, this is very different because in cervix cancer, we need to manipulate the cervix and the tumor is right at the outside there. So I personally don't use a uterine manipulator. I believe in the United States, uterine manipulators are used all the time. My experience is not in this area, so I can't comment on that. But I would think that the manipulation of the cervix and the contact of the cervix to the free peritoneal cavity could be one of the reasons. But again, this is simply a personal opinion. Dr. Ebony Hoskins: Well, I appreciate it. Dr. Andreas Obermair: Ebony at the end of the day, right, medicine is empirical science, and empirical science means that we just make observations, we make observations, we measure them, and we pass them on. And we made an observation. And, and while we're saying that, and yes, you're absolutely right, the final [LACC] reports were published in JCO recently. And I'm very grateful to the JCO editorial team that they accepted the paper, and they communicated the results because this is obviously very important. At the same time, I would like to say that there are now three or four RCTs that challenge the LACC data. These RCTs are ongoing, and a lot of people will be looking forward to having these results available. Dr. Ebony Hoskins: Very good. In early-stage cervical cancer, the SHAPE trial looked at simple versus radical hysterectomy in low-risk cervical cancer patients. And as well all know, simple hysterectomy was not inferior to radical hysterectomy with respect to the pelvic recurrence rate and any complications related to surgery such as urinary incontinence and retention. My question for you is have you changed your practice in early-stage cervical cancer, say a patient with stage 1B1 adenocarcinoma with a positive margin on conization, would you still offer this patient a radical hysterectomy or would you consider a simple hysterectomy? Dr. Andreas Obermair:  I think this is a very important topic, right? Because I think the challenge of SHAPE is to understand the inclusion criteria. That's the main challenge. And most people simplify it to 2 cm, which is one of the inclusion criteria but there are two others and that includes the depth of invasion. Dr. Marie Plante has been very clear. Marie Plante is the first author of the SHAPE trial that's been published in the New England Journal of Medicine only recently and Marie has been very clear upfront that we need to consider all three inclusion criteria and only then the inclusion criteria of SHAPE apply. So at the end of the day, I think what the SHAPE trial is telling us that small tumors that would strictly fulfill the criteria of a 1B or 1B1 cancer of the cervix can be considered for a standard type 1 or PIVA type 1 or whatever classification we're trying to use will be eligible. And that makes a lot of sense. I personally not only look at the size, I also look at the location of the tumor. I would be very keen that I avoid going through tumor tissue because for example, if you have a tumor that is, you know, located very much in one corner of the cervix and then you do a standard hysterectomy and then you have a positive tumor margin that would be obviously, most people would agree it would be an unwanted outcome. So I'd be very keen checking the location, the size of the tumor, the depths of invasion and maybe then if the tumor for example is on one side of the cervix you can do a standard approach on the contralateral side but maybe do a little bit more of a margin, a parametrial margin on the other side. Or if a tumor is maybe on the posterior cervical lip, then you don't need to worry so much about the anterior cervical margin, maybe take the rectum down and maybe try to get a little bit of a vaginal margin and the margin on the uterus saccals. Just really to make sure that you do have margins because typically if we get it right, survival outcomes of clinical stage 1 early cervix cancer 1B1 1B 2 are actually really good. It is a very important thing that we get the treatment right. In my practice, I use a software to record my treatment outcomes and my margins. And I would encourage all colleagues to be cognizant and to be responsible and accountable to introduce accountable clinical practice, to check on the margins and check on the number on the percentage of patients who require postoperative radiation treatment or chemo radiation. Dr. Ebony Hoskins: Very good. I have so many questions for you. I don't know the statistics in Australia, but here, there's increased rising of endometrial cancer and certainly we're seeing it in younger women. And fertility always comes up in terms of kind of what to do. And I look at the guidelines and, see if I can help some of the women if they have early-stage endometrial cancer. Your thoughts on what your practice is on use of someone who may meet criteria, if you will. The criteria I use is grade 1 endometrioid adenocarcinoma. No myometria invasion. I try to get MRI'd and make sure that there's no disease outside the endometrium. And then if they make criteria, I typically would do an IUD. Can you tell me what your practice is and where you've had success? Dr. Andreas Obermair: So, we initiated the feMMe clinical trial that was published in 2021 and it was presented in a Plenary at one of the SGO meetings. I think it was in 2021, and we've shown complete pathological response rates after levonorgestrel intrauterine device treatment. And so in brief, we enrolled patients with endometrial hyperplasia with atypia, but also patients with grade 1 endometrial adenocarcinoma. Patients with endometrial hyperplasia with atypia had, in our series, had an 85 % chance of developing a complete pathological response. And that was defined as the complete absence of any atypia or cancer. So endometrial hyperplasia with atypia responded in about 85%. In endometrial cancer, it was about half, it was about 45, 50%. In my clinical practice, like as you, I see patients, you know, five days a week. So I'm looking after many patients who are now five years down from conservative treatment of endometrial cancer. There are a lot of young women who want to get pregnant, and we had babies, and we celebrate the babies obviously because as gynecologist obstetricians it couldn't get better than that, right, if our cancer patients have babies afterwards. But we're also treating women who are really unfit for surgery and who are frail and where a laparoscopic hysterectomy would be unsafe. So this phase is concluded, and I think that was very successful. At least we're looking to validate our data. So we're having collaborations, we're having collaborations in the United States and outside the United States to validate these data. And the next phase is obviously to identify predictive factors, to identify predictors of response. Because as you can imagine, there is no point treating patients with a levonorgestrel intrauterine joint device where we know in advance that she's not going to respond. So this is a very, very fascinating story and we got our first set of data already, but now we just really need to validate this data. And then once the validation is done, my unit is keen to do a prospective validation trial. And that also needs to involve international collaborators. Dr. Ebony Hoskins: Very good. Moving on to ovarian cancer, we see patients with ovarian cancer with, say, at least stage 3C or higher who started neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Now, some of these patients are hearing different things from their medical oncologist versus their gynecologic oncologist regarding the number of cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy after getting diagnosed with ovarian cancer. I know that this can be confusing for our patients coming from a medical oncologist versus a gynecologic oncologist. What do you say to a patient who is asking about the ideal number of chemotherapy cycles prior to surgery? Dr. Andreas Obermair: So this is obviously a very, very important topic to talk about. We won't be able to provide a simple off the shelf answer for that, but I think data are emerging.  The ASCO guidelines should also be worthwhile considering because there are actually new ASCO Guidelines [on neoadjuvant chemotherapy for newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer] that just came out a few weeks ago and they would suggest that we should be aiming for R0 in surgery. If we can maybe take that as the pivot point and then go back and say, okay, so what do need to do to get the patient to zero?  I'm not an ovarian cancer researcher; I'm obviously a practicing gynecologic oncologist. I think about things a lot and things like that. In my practice, I would want a patient to develop a response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. So, if a patient doesn't have a response after two or three cycles, then I don't see the point for me to offer her an operation. In my circle with the medical oncologists that I work with, I have a very, very good understanding. So, they send the patient to me, I take them to the theater. I take a good chunk of tissue from the peritoneum. We have a histopathologic diagnosis, we have a genomic diagnosis, they go home the same day. So obviously there is no hospital stay involved with that. They can start the chemotherapy after a few days. There is no hold up because the chances of surgical complication in a setting like this is very, very low. So I use laparoscopy to determine whether the patient responds or not. And for many of my patients, it seems to work. It's obviously a bit of an effort and it takes operating time. But I think I'm increasing my chances to make the right decision. So, coming back to your question about whether we should give three or six cycles, I think the current recommendations are three cycles pending the patient's response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy because my aim is to get a patient to R0 or at least minimal residual disease. Surgery is really, in this case, I think surgery is the adjunct to systemic treatment. Dr. Ebony Hoskins: Definitely. I think you make a great point, and I think the guideline just came out, like you mentioned, regarding neoadjuvant. And I think the biggest thing that we need to come across is the involvement of a gynecologic oncologist in patients with ovarian cancer. And we know that that survival increases with that involvement. And I think the involvement is the surgery, right? So, maybe we've gotten away from the primary tumor debulking and now using more neoadjuvant, but surgery is still needed. And so, I definitely want to have a take home that GYN oncology is involved in the care of these patients upfront. Dr. Andreas Obermair: I totally support that. This is a very important statement. So when I'm saying surgery is the adjunct to medical treatment, I don't mean that surgery is not important. Surgery is very important. And the timing is important. And that means that the surgeons and the med oncs need to be pulling on the same string. The med oncs just want to get the cytotoxic into the patients, but that's not the point, right? We want to get the cytotoxic into the patients at the right time because if we are working under this precision surgery, precision treatment mantra, it's not only important what we do, but also doing it at the right time. And ideally, I I would like to give surgery after three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, if that makes sense. But sometimes for me as a surgeon, I talk to my med onc colleagues and I say, “Look, she doesn't have a good enough response to her treatment and I want her to receive six cycles and then we re-evaluate or change medical treatment,” because that's an alternative that we can swap out drugs and treat upfront with a different drug and then sometimes they do respond. Dr. Ebony Hoskins:  I have maybe one more topic. In the area I'm in, in the Washington D.C. area, we see lots of endometrial cancer and they're not grade 1, right? They're high-risk endometrial cancer and advanced. So a number of patients with stage 3 disease, some just kind of based off staging and then some who come in with disease based off of the CT scan, sometimes omental caking, ascites. And the real question is we have extrapolated the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy to endometrial cancer. It's similar, but not the same. So my question is in an advanced endometrial cancer, do you think there's still a role, when I say advanced, I mean, maybe stage 4, a role for surgery? Dr. Andreas Obermair: Most definitely. But the question is when do you want to give this surgery? Similar to ovarian cancer, in my experience, I want to get to R0. What am I trying to achieve here? So, I reckon we should do a trial on this. And I reckon we have, as you say, the number of patients in this setting is increasing, we could do a trial. I think if we collaborate, we would have enough patients to do a proper trial. Obviously, we would start maybe with a feasibility trial and things like that. But I reckon a trial would be needed in this setting because I find that the incidence that you described, that other people would come across, they're becoming more and more common. I totally agree with you, and we have very little data on that. Dr. Ebony Hoskins: Very little and we're doing what we can. Dr. Obermair, thank you for sharing your fantastic insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast and for all the work you do to advance care for patients with gynecologic cancer. Dr. Andreas Obermair: Thank you, Dr. Hoskins, for hosting this and it's been an absolute pleasure speaking with you today. Dr. Ebony Hoskins: Definitely a pleasure and thank you to our listeners for your time today. Again, Dr. Obermair's article is titled, “Controversies in the Surgical Management of Gynecologic Cancer: Balancing the Decision to Operate or Hesitate,” and was published in the 2024 ASCO Educational Book. And you'll find a link to the article in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speakers: Dr. Ebony Hoskins @drebonyhoskins Dr. Andreas Obermair @andreasobermair Follow ASCO on social media:       @ASCO on Twitter       ASCO on Bluesky   ASCO on Facebook       ASCO on LinkedIn       Disclosures:   Dr. Ebony Hoskins: No relationships to disclose. Dr. Andreas Obermair: Leadership: SurgicalPerformance Pty Ltd. Stock and Ownership Interests: SurgicalPerformance Pty Ltd. Honoraria: Baxter Healthcare Consulting or Advisory Role: Stryker/Novadaq Patents, Royalties, and Other Intellectual Property: Shares in SurgicalPerformance Pty Ltd. Travel, Accommodation, Expenses: Stryker    

Dr. John Sweetenham and Dr. James Foran discuss the evolving treatment landscape in acute myeloid leukemia, including new targeted therapies, advances in immunotherapy, and the current role for allogeneic transplantation. TRANSCRIPT Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. There has been steady progress in the therapies for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in recent years, largely based on an increasing understanding of the molecular mechanisms which underlie the disease. On today's episode, we'll be discussing the evolving treatment landscape in AML. We'll explore risk group stratification, new targeted therapies, advances in immunotherapy for AML, and also a little about the current role for allogenic transplantation in this disease.  I'm delighted to welcome Dr. James Foran to this discussion. Dr. Foran is a professor of medicine and chair of the Myeloid Malignancies and Blood and Marrow Transplant Disease Group at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center. He's based in Jacksonville, Florida.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  James, it's great to have you join us on the podcast today, and thanks so much for being here. Dr. James Foran: I'm delighted and thank you for the invitation. Thank you very much. Dr. John Sweetenham: Sure, James, let's get right into it. So, our understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying AML has resulted not only in new methods for risk stratification in this disease, which have added refinement to cytogenetics, but also has resulted in the development of many new targeted agents. Understanding that this is a complex area of investigation, and our time is somewhat limited, can you give us a high-level update on the current state of the art in terms of how risk factors are being used for treatment selection now? Dr. James Foran: Absolutely. I think in the past, you know, we had things broken down pretty simply into make a diagnosis based on morphology, do cytogenetics, break patients into the groups of those who were more likely to benefit from therapy – so-called favorable risk – those where the intensive therapies were less likely to work – so-called poor adverse risk, and then this large intermediate group that really had variable outcomes, some better, some worse. And for a long time, the progress was in just identifying new subtle cytogenetic risk groups. And then, late 1990s, we began to understand that FLT3 mutations or NRAS mutations may be more adverse than others that came along. In the first part of this millennium, in the, you know, 2000-2010 range, a lot of work was being done to understand better or worse risk factors with single genes. The ability to do multiplex PCR, and then more recently NGS platforms, have allowed us to really look at many genes and identify many mutations in patients. At the beginning that was used just to sort of refine – who did a little better, who did a little worse with intensive therapy – helped us decide who may benefit more from an allogeneic transplanter for whom that would not be necessary.  But the good news is that really, we're now starting to target those mutations. One of the first molecularly targeted treatments in leukemia was FLT3 mutations, where we knew they were adverse. Then along came targeted treatments. I was involved in some of those early studies looking at sunitinib, sorafenib, more recently midostaurin, now quizartinib, FDA approved, and gilteritinib in the relapse refractory setting.  So we're moving into a state where we're not just refining prognosis, we're identifying targets. You know, it's been slow progress, but definite incremental progress in terms of outcomes by looking for FLT3 mutations, then looking for IDH mutations, and more recently, mutations involving NPM1 or rearrangement of what we used to call the MLL gene, now the lysine methyltransferase 2A or KMT2A rearrangement, where we now have targets. And it's not just for refinement of prognosis, but now we're identifying therapeutic targets for patients and ways to even look for measurable residual disease which is impacting our care. Dr. John Sweetenham: That's great, James. And I'm going to expand on that theme just a little bit and perhaps ask you to elaborate a little bit more on how the introduction of these new therapies have specifically impacted frontline therapy. And a couple of ancillary questions maybe to go along with that: First of all, is ‘7+3' a standard therapy for anybody in 2025? And maybe secondly, you know, could you comment also maybe briefly on older patients with AML and how you think maybe the treatment landscape is changing for them compared with, say, 5 or 10 years ago? Dr. James Foran: I'll start with the therapy and then work my way back. So we've had ‘7+3' cytarabine daunorubicin or cytarabine anthracycline since 1976, and we're still using it as the backbone of our intensive therapy. There is still an important role for it, particularly in younger or fitter patients, and particularly for those with intermediate or favorable risk genetic groups or cytogenetic risk groups just because we achieve high rates of remission. Our 30-day induction mortality rates are lower now than they were 10 and 20 years ago. Our supportive care is better. And we still have a busy inpatient hospital service here at Mayo Florida and my colleagues in Rochester and Arizona as well giving intensive therapy. So that remains the backbone of curative therapy for younger adults. We are trying to be a little more discriminating about who we administer that to. We are trying to add targeted agents. We know from, now, two different randomized trials that the addition of a FLT3 inhibitor, either midostaurin or more recently quizartinib, has a survival advantage in patients with a FLT3 mutation, or for quizartinib, a FLT3/ITD mutation. And so yes, ‘7+3' remains important.  Off protocol for somebody who just comes in with acute leukemia in a 40-year-old or 30-year-old or even early 60s and fit, we would still be considering ‘7+3' therapy and then waiting for an expedited gene mutation panel and an expedited cytogenetics panel to come back to help us discriminate is that a patient for whom we should be giving a FLT3 inhibitor? I think there's a little more nuance about when we do a day 14 bone marrow, do they really matter as much anymore? I still do them. Some of my colleagues find them less important. But we're still giving intensive therapy. We're still giving high-dose ARA-C consolidation for younger patients who achieve complete remission.  In older adults, it's a different story. You know, it was only in the early part of the 2000s – 2004, 2007 range – where we really got buy-in from randomized studies that low-dose therapy was better than no therapy. There was a lot of nihilism before then about therapy for older adults, especially over age 75. We know that low-dose ARA-C is better than nothing. It looked like azacitidine was better than ARA-C or at least equivalent or slightly better. But with the advent of venetoclax it was a game changer. I ran a national randomized study of intensive therapy in AML. It was the last national randomized study of intensive therapy in older patients right before venetoclax got approved. And we were very excited about our results, and we thought we had some really interesting clinical results. And suddenly that's a little bit obsolete in patients over 70 and particularly over age 75 because of the high remission rates with azacytidine venetoclax or hypomethylating agents, so-called HMAs and venetoclax and the survival advantage. Now, it's not a home run for everybody. We quote 60% to 70% remission rates, but it's a little different based on your cytogenetics and your mutation profile. You have to continue on therapy so it's continuous treatment. It's not with curative intent, although there are some people with long-term remission in it. And the median survival went from 10 months to 15 months. So home run? No, but definitely improved remissions, meaningful for patients off transfusions and better survival. So right now it's hard to find an older adult who you wouldn't give azacitidine and venetoclax or something similar, decitabine, for instance, and venetoclax, unless somebody really was moribund or had very poor performance status or some reason not to. And so ‘7+3' is still relevant in younger adults. We're trying to get better results with ‘7+3' by adding targeted agents and azacitine and venetoclax in older adults.  I think the area of controversy, I guess there are two of them, is what to do in that overlap age between 60 and 75. Should people in that age still get intensive therapy, which we've used for years – the VIALE-A trial of aza-venetoclax was age 75 plus – or with cardiac comorbidities? And I think if you're 68 or 72, many of us are starting to bias towards aza-venetoclax as generally being better tolerated, generally being more outpatient, generally being slow and steady way to get a remission. And it doesn't stop you from going to transplant for somebody who might still be a candidate.  The other area of controversy is somebody under 60 who has adverse cytogenetics where we don't do very well with ‘7+3,' we still give it and we might do just as well with decitabine venetoclax. A lot of us feel that there's equipoise in the 60 to 75 group where we really can ask a question of a randomized study. Retrospective studies might suggest that intensive therapy is a little better, but there are now a couple of randomized studies happening saying, “Can we replace ‘7+3' in that intermediate age with aza-venetoclax?” And for younger adults similarly, we're looking to see how we apply that technology. Those are the areas where we're really trying to investigate what's optimal for patients and that's going to require randomized trials. Dr. John Sweetenham: Oh, that's great, thank you. And I'll just extend that question a little bit more, particularly with respect to the new targeted therapies. How much are they impacting the treatment of these patients in the relapse and refractory setting now? Dr. James Foran: Oh, they're definitely impacting it. When I trained and probably when you trained, AML was still a medical emergency. But that was the thing that you admitted to the hospital immediately, you started therapy immediately. The rule was always that's the one thing that brings the fellow and the consultant in at night to see that new patient on a Friday or Saturday. Now, we'll still admit a patient for monitoring, but we try not to start therapy for the first three or five or seven days if they're stable, until we get those genetics and those genomics back, because it helps us discriminate what therapy to pursue. And certainly, with FLT3 mutations, especially FLT3/ITD mutations, we're adding FLT3 inhibitors and we're seeing a survival advantage. Now, on the surface, that survival advantage is in the range of 7% or 10%. But if you then pursue an allogeneic transplant in first remission, you're taking disease where we used to see 30%, 40% long-term survival, maybe less, and you're pushing that to 60%, 70% in some studies. And so we're now taking a disease that– I don't want to get off topic and talk about Ph+ ALL. But that's a disease where we're actually a little excited. We have a target now, and it used to be something really adverse and now we can do a lot for it and a lot about it.  The other mutations, it's a little more subtle. Now, who knew until 2010 that a mutation in a sugar metabolism gene, in isocitrate dehydrogenase, or IDH was going to be so important, or even that it existed. We know that IDH1 and IDH2 mutations are still a minority of AML, certainly less than 10% to 15%, maybe overall. But we're able to target those with specific IDH1 and IDH2 inhibitors. We get single-agent responses. There are now two approved IDH1 inhibitors on the market. We don't yet have the randomized data that adding those to intensive therapy is better, but we're getting a very strong hint that it might be better in older adults who have an IDH mutation, maybe adding those is helpful and maybe adding those to low-intensity therapy is helpful. Those studies are ongoing, and we're also trying with low-intensity treatments to add these agents and get higher remission rates, deeper remissions, longer remissions. I think a lot of work has to be done to delineate the safety of that and the long-term efficacy. But we're getting hints it's better, so I think it is impacting.  The other area it's impacting is when you pick up adverse mutations and those have crept into our classification systems like an ASXL1 mutation or RUNX1 mutation for instance, or some of the secondary AML mutations like BCOR and others, where that's helping us discriminate intermediate-risk patients who we think aren't going to do as well and really helping us select a group who's more likely to get benefit from allogeneic transplant or for whom at least our cure rates without allo transplant are low. And so I think it's impacting a lot. Dr. John Sweetenham: Great. And I'm going to pick up now, if I may, on a couple of things that you've just mentioned and continue the theme of the relapsed and refractory setting. We've started to see some reports which have looked at the role of immune strategies for patients with AML, in particular CAR T or NK cells. Can you comment a little on this and let us know whether you think either these two strategies or other immune strategies are likely to have a significant role in AML in the future? Dr. James Foran: They are, but I think we're still a step behind finding the right target or the right way to do it. If you think of allogeneic transplantation as the definitive immune therapy, and we know for adverse AML we can improve survival rates and cure rates with an allotransplant, then we know inherently that immune therapy matters. And so how do we do what they've done in large cell lymphoma or in CD19 targeting for B cell malignancies? How do we bring that to acute myeloid leukemia? There have been a number of efforts. There have been at least 50 trials looking at different targets. CD33, CD123, CD7, others, CLL-1. So, there have been a number of different trials looking at how to bind a CAR T or a CAR T construct that can be active. And we have hints of efficacy. There was kind of a provocative paper in the New England Journal of Medicine a year ago in April of last year from a Chinese group that looked at a CD7-based CAR T and it was 10 patients, but they used CD7 positive acute leukemia, AML or ALL and had a CD7-targeted CAR T and they actually incorporated that with a haploidentical transplant and they had really high remission rates. People tolerated it quite well. It was provocative. It hasn't yet been reproduced on a larger scale, but the strong hints that the strategy is going to work.  Now, CD33 is a little tricky to have a CAR T when CD33 is expressed on normal hematopoietic cells. CD123 likewise. That's been something where there's, I think, still promise, but we've struggled to find the trials that make that work. Right now, there's a lot of interest in leveraging NK cells and looking, for a couple of reasons, but NK cells are attractive and NK cell markers might be attractive targets. NK cells might have similar degrees of immune efficacy. It's speculative, but they are likely to have less cytokine release syndrome and less neurotoxicity than you see with CAR T. And so it's kind of attractive to leverage that. We have had some ongoing trials looking at it with bispecifics and there certainly are trials looking at it with CAR NK-based strategies. One of the antigens that people looked at is the NK group 2D. NK group 2D or NKG2D is overexpressed in AML and its ligands overexpressed. And so that's a particular potential target. So, John, it's happening and we're looking for the hints of efficacy that could then drive a pivotal trial to get something approved.  One of the other areas is not restricting yourself just to a single antigen. For instance, there is a compound that's looking at a multi-tumor-associated antigen-specific T-cell therapy, looking at multiple antigens in AML that could be overexpressed. And there were some hints of activity and efficacy and actually a new trial looking at a so-called multi-tumor associated antigen-specific T cell therapy. So without getting into specific conflicts of interest or trials, I do think that's an exciting area and an evolving area, but still an investigational area. I'll stop there and say that we're excited about it. A lot of work's going there, but I'm not quite sure which direction the field's going to pivot to there. I think that's going to take us some time to sort out. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely. But as you say, exciting area and I guess continue to watch this space for now.  So you've mentioned allogeneic stem cell transplants two or three times during this discussion. Recognizing that we don't have an imatinib for AML, which has kind of pushed transplant a long way further back in the treatment algorithm, can you comment a little on, you know, whether you think the role of stem cell transplantation is changing in AML or whether it remains pretty much as it was maybe 10 years ago? Dr. James Foran: By the way, I love that you use imatinib as an introduction because that was 6 TKIs ago, and it tells you the evolution in CML and you know, now we're looking at myristoyl pocket as a target, and so on. That's a great way to sort of show you the evolution of the field.  Allogeneic transplant, it remains a core treatment for AML, and I think we're getting much smarter and much better about learning how to use it. And I'm just going to introduce the topic of measurable residual disease to tell you about that. So I am a little bit of a believer. Part of my job is I support our allogeneic transplant program, although my focus is acute myeloid leukemia, and I've trained in transplant and done it for years and did a transplant fellowship and all that. I'm much more interested in finding people who don't need a transplant than people who do. So I'm sort of looking for where can we move away from it. But it still has a core role. I'll sidestep and tell you there was an MDS trial that looked at intermediate or high-risk MDS and the role of allogeneic transplant that shows that you about double your survival. It was a BMT CTN trial published several years ago that showed you about double your three-year survival if you can find a donor within three months and get to a transplant within six months. And so it just tells you the value of allotransplant and myeloid malignancy in general. In AML we continue to use it for adverse risk disease – TP53 is its own category, I can talk about that separately – but adverse risk AML otherwise, or for patients who don't achieve a really good remission. And I still teach our fellows that an allotransplant decreases your risk of relapse by about 50%. That's still true, but you have to have a group of patients who are at high enough risk of relapse to merit the non-relapse mortality and the chronic graft versus host disease that comes with it. Now, our outcomes with transplant are better because we're better at preventing graft versus host disease with the newer strategies such as post-transplant cyclophosphamide. There are now new FDA-approved drugs for acute and chronic graft versus host disease, ruxolitinib, belumosudil, axatilimab now. So we have better ways of treating it, but we still want to be discriminating about who should get it.  And it's not just a single-minded one-size-fits-all. We learned from the MORPHO study that was published in the JCO last year that if you have FLIT3-positive AML, FLIT3/IDT-positive AML, where we would have said from retrospective studies that your post-transplant survival is 60% give or take, as opposed to 15% or 20% without it, that we can discriminate who should or shouldn't get a transplant. Now that trial was a little bit nuanced because it did not meet its primary endpoint, but it had an embedded randomization based upon MRD status and they used a very sensitive test of measurable residual disease. They used a commercial assay by Invivoscribe that could look at the presence of a FLT3/ITD in the level of 10 to the minus 5th or 10 to the minus 6th. And if you were MRD-negative and you went through a transplant, you didn't seem to get an advantage versus not. That was of maintenance with gilteritinib, I'll just sort of put that on there. But it's telling us more about who should get a transplant and who shouldn't and who should get maintenance after transplant and who shouldn't.  A really compelling study a year ago from I don't know what to call the British group now, we used to call them the MRC and then the NCRI. I'm not quite sure what to call their studies at the moment. But Dr. Jad Othman did a retrospective study a year ago that looked at patients who had NPM1 mutation, the most common mutation AML, and looked to see if you were MRD positive or MRD negative, what the impact of a transplant was. And if you're MRD negative there was not an advantage of a transplant, whereas if you're MRD positive there was. And when they stratified that by having a FLT3 mutation that cracked. If you had a FLT3 mutation at diagnosis but your NPM1 was negative in remission, it was hard to show an advantage of a transplant. So I think we're getting much more discriminating about who should or should not get a transplant by MRD testing for NPM1 and that includes the patients who have a concomitant FLT3 mutation. And we're really trying to learn more and more. Do we really need to be doing transplants in those who are MRD-negative? If you have adverse risk genetics and you're MRD-negative, I'll really need good data to tell me not to do a transplant, but I suspect bit by bit, we'll get that data. And we're looking to see if that's really the case there, too. So measurable residual disease testing is helping us discriminate, but there is still a core role of allogeneic transplant. And to reassure you, compared to, I think your allotransplant days were some time ago if I'm right. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yes. Dr. James Foran: Yeah. Well, compared to when you were doing transplants, they're better now and better for patients now. And we get people through graft versus host disease better, and we prevent it better. Dr. John Sweetenham: That's a great answer, James. Thanks for that. It really does help to put it in context, and I think it also leads us on very nicely into what's going to be my final question for you today and perhaps the trickiest, in a way. I think that everything you've told us today really emphasizes the fact that the complexity of AML treatment has increased, primarily because of an improved understanding of the molecular landscape of the disease. And it's a complicated area now. So do you have any thoughts on what type of clinical environment patients with AML should be evaluated and treated in in 2025? Dr. James Foran: Yeah, I want to give you a kind of a cautious answer to that because, you know, I'm a leukemia doctor. I work at a leukemia center and it's what we focus on. And we really pride ourselves on our outcomes and our diagnostics and our clinical trials and so on. I am very aware that the very best oncologists in America work in private practice and work in community practice or in networks, not necessarily at an academic site. And I also know they have a much harder job than I have. They have to know lung cancer, which is molecularly as complicated now as leukemia, and they have to know about breast cancer and things that I don't even know how to spell anymore. So it's not a question of competence or knowledge. It's a question of infrastructure. I'll also put a little caveat saying that I have been taught by Rich Stone at Dana-Farber, where I did a fellowship a long time ago, and believe Rich is right, that I see different patients than the community oncologists see with AML, they're seeing different people. But with that caveat, I think the first thing is you really want to make sure you've got access to excellence, specialized hematopathology, that you can get expedited cytogenetics and NGS testing results back. There was a new drug, approved just a few months ago, actually, for relapsed AML with a KMT2A rearrangement, revumenib. We didn't talk about the menin inhibitors. I'll mention them in just a second. That's a huge area of expansion and growth for us. But they're not found on NGS platforms. And normal cytogenetics might miss a KMT2A-rearrangement. And we're actually going back to FISH panels, believe it or not, on AML, to try to identify who has a KMT2A-rearrangement. And so you really want to make sure you can access the diagnostic platforms for that.  I think the National Referral Labs do an excellent job. Not always a really fast job, but an excellent job. At my institution, I get NGS results back within three days or four days. We just have an expedited platform. Not everybody has that. So that's the key, is you have to be able to make the diagnosis, trust the pathologist, get expedited results. And then it's the question of trying to access the targeted medications because a lot of them are not carried in hospital on formulary or take time to go through an insurance approval process. So that's its own little headache, getting venetoclax, getting gilteritinib, getting an IDH1 inhibitor in first line, if that's what you're going for. And so I think that requires some infrastructure. We have case managers and nurses who really expedite that and help us with it, but that's a lot of work. The other piece of the puzzle is that we're still with AML in the first month and maybe even the second month. We make everybody worse before we make them better. And you have to have really good blood bank support. I can give an outpatient platelet transfusion or red cell transfusion seven days a week. We're just built for that. That's harder to do if you're in a community hospital and you have to be collaborating with a local blood bank. And that's not always dead easy for somebody in practice. So with those caveats, I do find that my colleagues in community practice do a really good job making the diagnosis, starting people on therapy, asking for help. I think the real thing is to be able to have a regional leukemia center that you can collaborate with, connect with, text, call to make sure that you're finding the right patients who need the next level of diagnostics, clinical trial, transplant consults, to really get the best results.  There was some data at ASH a couple of years ago that looked at – the American Society of Hematology and ASCOs had similar reports – that looked at how do we do in academic centers versus community practice for keeping people on therapy. And on average, people were more likely to get six cycles of therapy instead of three cycles of therapy with azacitidine venetoclax at an academic center. Now, maybe it's different patients and maybe they had different cytogenetics and so on, but I think you have to be patient, I think you have to collaborate. But you can treat those patients in the community as long as you've got the infrastructure in place. And we've learned with virtual medicine, with Zoom and other platforms that we can deliver virtual care more effectively with the pandemic and beyond. So I think we're trying to offer virtual consults or virtual support for patients so they can stay in their home, stay in their community, stay with their oncologists, but still get access to excellent diagnostics and supportive care and transplant consults, and so on. I hope that's a reasonable answer to that question. It's a bit of a nuanced answer, which is, I think there's an important role of a leukemia center, and I think there's a really fundamental role of keeping somebody in the community they live in, and how we collaborate is the key to that. And we've spent a lot of time and effort working with the oncologists in our community to try to accomplish that.  John, I want to say two other things. I didn't mention in the molecular platforms that NPM1 mutations, we can now target those on clinical trials with menin inhibitors. We know that NPM1 signals through the Hoxa9/Meis1 pathway. We know that similar pathways are important in KMT2A rearrangements. We know that there are some other rare leukemias like those with NUP98 rearrangement. We can target those with menin inhibitors. The first menin inhibitor, revuminib, was approved by the FDA for KMT2A. We have others going to the FDA later this year for NPM1. There are now pivotal trials and advanced expanded phase 1/2 studies that are showing 30% response rates. And we're looking to see can we add those into the first-line therapy. So, we're finding more targets.  I'll say one last thing about molecular medicine. I know I'm a little off topic here, but I always told patients that getting AML was kind of like being struck by lightning. It's not something you did. Now, obviously, there are risk factors for AML, smoking or obesity or certain farm environments, or radioactive exposures and so on. But bit by bit, we're starting to learn about who's predisposed to AML genetically. We've identified really just in the last five or eight years that DDX41 mutations can be germline half the time. And you always think germline mutations are going to cause AML in a younger patient, but the median age is 60 to 70 just like other AMLs. They actually might do pretty well once they get AML. We've reported that in several papers. And so we're trying to understand who that has a RUNX1 mutation needs germline testing, who with a DDX41 needs germline testing. And we're trying to actually come up with a cleaner pathway for germline testing in patients to really understand predisposition, to help with donor selection, to help with family counseling. So I think those are other areas where a leukemia center can contribute for somebody in who's community practice to understand genomic or genetic complexity in these patients. And we're starting to develop the databases that support that. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, great. Thanks, James. I loved your answer about the clinical environment too. And I know from a patient-centric perspective that I know that patients would certainly appreciate the fact that we're in a situation now where the folks taking care of them will make every effort to keep them close to home if they possibly can.  I want to thank you, James, for an incredible review of a very complex subject and I think you did a great job. I think we all will have learned a lot. And thanks again for being willing to share your insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. James Foran: John, it's my pleasure. And as you know, I'll do anything for a latte, so no problem at all. Dr. John Sweetenham: Okay. I owe you one, so thank you for that.  And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You'll find links to the studies we've discussed today in the transcript of this episode. And finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speakers:  Dr. John Sweetenham  Dr. James Foran Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on Twitter ASCO on Bluesky ASCO on Facebook  ASCO on LinkedIn  Disclosures:    Dr. John Sweetenham:    No relationships to disclose Dr. James Foran: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Consulting or Advisory Role: Peerview, CTI BioPharma Corp, Remix Therapeutics, Cardinal Health, Medscape, Syndax, Autolus Therapeutics Research Funding (Inst.): Chordia Therapeutics, Abbvie, Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Kura Oncology, Sellas Life Sciences, Novartis, Roivant, Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas Pharma, SERVIER Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Peerview

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal and Dr. Peter Hoskin discuss key abstracts in GU cancers from the 2025 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium, including novel therapies in prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer and the impact of combination therapies on patient outcomes. TRANSCSRIPT Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Neeraj Agarwal, the director of the Genitourinary Oncology Program and professor of medicine at the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, and editor-in-chief of ASCO Daily News. Today, we'll be discussing practice-informing abstracts and other key advances in GU oncology featured at the 2025 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium. Joining me for this discussion is Dr. Peter Hoskin, the chair of this year's ASCO GU Symposium. Dr. Hoskin is a professor in clinical oncology in the University of Manchester and honorary consultant in clinical oncology at the Christie Hospital, Manchester, and University College Hospital London, in the United Kingdom. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Peter, thank you for joining us today. Dr. Peter Hoskin: Thank you so much, Neeraj. I am very pleased to be here. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: The GU meeting highlighted remarkable advancements across the spectrum of GU malignancies. What stood out to you as the most exciting developments at the ASCO GU Symposium?  Dr. Peter Hoskin: The theme of this year's meeting was "Driving Innovation, Improving Patient Care," and this reflected ASCO GU's incredible milestone in GU cancer research over the years. We were thrilled to welcome almost 6,000 attendees on this occasion from over 70 countries, and most of them were attending in person and not online, although this was a hybrid meeting. Furthermore, we had more than 1,000 abstract submissions. You can imagine then that it fostered fantastic networking opportunities and facilitated valuable knowledge and idea exchanges among experts, trainees, and mentees. So, to start I'd like to come back to you for a second because the first day started with a focus on prostate cancer and some of the key clinical trials. And congratulations to you, Neeraj, on sharing the data from the TALAPRO-2 trial, which we were eagerly awaiting. I'd love to get your thoughts on the data that you presented. Could you tell us more about that trial, Abstract LBA18?  Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yes, Peter, I agree with you. It was such an exciting conference overall and thank you for your leadership of this conference. So, let's talk about the TALAPRO-2 trial. First of all, I would like to remind our audience that the combination of talazoparib plus enzalutamide was approved by the U.S. FDA in June 2023 in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer harboring HRR gene alterations, after this combination improved the primary endpoint of radiographic progression-free survival compared to enzalutamide alone in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-cohort phase 3 TALAPRO-2 trial. In the abstract I presented at ASCO GU 2025, we reported the final overall survival data, which was a key alpha-protected secondary endpoint in cohort 1, which enrolled an all-comer population of patients with mCRPC. So, at a median follow-up of around 53 months, in the intention-to-treat population, the combination of talazoparib plus enzalutamide significantly reduced the risk of death by 20% compared to enzalutamide alone, with a median OS of 45.8 months in the experimental arm versus 37 months in the control arm, which was an active control arm of enzalutamide. This improvement was consistent in patients with HRR alterations with a hazard ratio of 0.54 and in those with non-deficient or unknown HRR status, with a hazard ratio of 0.87. In a post hoc analysis, the hazard ratio for OS was 0.78 favoring the combination in those patients who did not have any HRR gene alteration in their tumors by both tissue and ctDNA testing. Consistent with the primary analysis, the updated rPFS data also favored the experimental arm with a median rPFS of 33.1 compared to 19.5 months in the control arm, and a hazard ratio of 0.667. No new safety signals were identified with extended follow-up. Thus, TALAPRO-2 is the first PARP inhibitor plus ARPI study to show a statistically significant and a clinically meaningful improvement in OS compared to standard-of-care enzalutamide as first-line treatment in patients with mCRPC unselected for HRR gene alterations. Dr. Peter Hoskin: Thank you, Neeraj. That's a great summary of the data presented and very important data indeed. There was another abstract also featured in the same session, Abstract 20, titled “Which patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer benefit more from androgen receptor pathway inhibitors? STOPCAP meta-analyses of individual participant data.” Neeraj, could you tell us more about this abstract? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Absolutely, I would be delighted to. So, in this meta-analysis, Dr. David Fischer and colleagues pooled individual participant data from different randomized phase 3 trials in the mHSPC setting to assess the potential ARPI effect modifiers and determine who benefits more from an ARPI plus ADT doublet. The primary outcome was OS for main effects and PFS for subgroup analyses. Prostate cancer specific survival was a sensitivity outcome. The investigators pooled data from 11 ARPI trials and more than 11,000 patients. Overall, there was a clear benefit of adding an ARPI on both OS and PFS, with hazard ratios of 0.66 and 0.51, respectively, representing a 13% and 21% absolute improvement at 5 years, respectively, with no clear difference by the class of agent. When stratifying the patients by age group, the effects of adding an ARPI on OS and PFS were slightly smaller in patients older than 75, than in those younger than 65, or aged between 65 and 75 years. Notably, in the trials assessing the use of abiraterone, we saw very little OS effects in the group of patients older than 75, however there was some benefit maintained in prostate-cancer specific survival, suggesting that other causes of death may be having an impact. The effects of the other ARPIs, or ‘lutamides' as I would call them, were similar across all three age subgroups on both OS and PFS. Therefore, the majority of patients with mHSPC benefit from the addition of ARPIs, and the benefits/risks of abiraterone and other ‘amides' must be considered in older patients.  Dr. Peter Hoskin: Thanks, Neeraj. Another great summary relevant to our day-to-day practice. Of course, there's ongoing collection of individual patient data from other key trials, which will allow robust comparison of ARPI doublet with triplet therapy (including docetaxel), guiding more personalized treatment.   Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: I agree with you, Peter, we need more data to help guide personalized treatment for patients with mHSPC and potentially guide de-escalation versus escalation strategies. Now, moving on to a different setting in prostate cancer, would you like to mention Abstract 17 titled, “Overall survival and quality of life with Lu-PSMA-617 plus enzalutamide versus enzalutamide alone in poor-risk, metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer in ENZA-p (ANZUP 1901),” presented by Dr. Louise Emmett? Dr. Peter Hoskin: Of course I will. So, ENZA-p was a multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 2 trial conducted in Australia. It randomized 163 patients into adaptive doses (2 or 4 cycles) of Lu-PSMA-617 plus enzalutamide versus enzalutamide alone as first-line treatment in PSMA-PET-CT-positive, poor-risk, mCRPC. The interim analysis of ENZA-p with median follow-up 20 months showed improved PSA-progression-free survival with the addition of Lu-PSMA-617 to enzalutamide. Here, the investigators reported the secondary outcomes, overall survival, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). After a median follow up of 34 months, overall survival was longer in the combination arm compared to the enzalutamide arm, with a median OS of 34 months compared to 26 months; with an HR of 0.55. Moreover, the combination improved both deterioration-free survival and health-related quality of life indicators for pain, fatigue, physical function, and overall health and quality of life compared to the control arm. Consistent with the primary analysis, the rPFS also favored the experimental arm with a median rPFS of 17 months compared to 14 months with a HR of 0.61. So, the addition of LuPSMA improved overall survival, and HRQOL in patients with high-risk mCRPC. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Peter. Great summary, and promising results with Lu-177 and ARPI combination in first line treatment for mCRPC among patients who had two or more high risk features associated with early enzalutamide failure. Before we move on to bladder cancer, would you like to tell us about Abstract 15 titled, “World-wide oligometastatic prostate cancer (omPC) meta-analysis leveraging individual patient data (IPD) from randomized trials (WOLVERINE): An analysis from the X-MET collaboration,” presented by Dr. Chad Tang?  Dr. Peter Hoskin: Sure. So, with metastatic-directed therapy (MDT), we have a number of phase 2 studies making up the database, and the X-MET collaboration aimed to consolidate all randomized data on oligometastatic solid tumors. This abstract presented pooled individual patient data from all the published trials involving patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer who received MDT alongside standard of care (SOC) against SOC alone. The analysis included data from five trials, encompassing 472 patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer, and followed for a median of 41 months. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either MDT plus SOC or SOC alone. The addition of MDT significantly improved PFS. The median PFS was 32 months with MDT compared to 14.9 months with SOC alone, with an HR of 0.45. Subgroup analyses further confirmed the consistent benefits of MDT across different patient groups. Regardless of factors like castration status, receipt of prior primary treatment, stage, or number of metastases, MDT consistently improved PFS. In patients with mHSPC, MDT significantly delayed the time to castration resistance by nine months, extending it to a median of 72 months compared to 63 months in the SOC group with an HR of 0.58. In terms of OS, the addition of MDT improved the 48-month survival rate by 12%, with OS rates of 87% in the MDT+SOC group compared to 75% in the SOC alone group. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Peter. These data demonstrate that adding MDT to systemic therapy significantly improves PFS, rPFS, and castration resistance-free survival, reinforcing its potential role in the treatment of oligometastatic prostate cancer. So, let's switch gears to bladder cancer and start with Abstract 658 reporting the OS analysis of the CheckMate-274 trial. Would you like to tell us about this abstract?  Dr. Peter Hoskin: Yes, sure, Neeraj. This was presented by Dr. Matt Milowsky, and it was additional efficacy outcomes, including overall survival, from the CheckMate-274 trial which evaluated adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo in patients with high-risk muscle-invasive bladder cancer after radical surgery. The phase 3 trial previously demonstrated a significant improvement in disease-free survival with nivolumab. With a median follow-up of 36.1 months, disease-free survival was longer with nivolumab compared to placebo across all patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer, reducing the risk of disease recurrence or death by 37%. Among patients who had received prior neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy, nivolumab reduced this risk by 42%, whilst in those who had not received chemotherapy, the risk was reduced by 31%. Overall survival also favored nivolumab over placebo, reducing the risk of death by 30% in all patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer and by 52% in those with tumors expressing PD-L1 at 1% or higher. Among patients who had received prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy, nivolumab reduced the risk of death by 26%, whilst in those who had not received chemotherapy, the risk was reduced by 33%. Alongside this, the safety profile remained consistent with previous findings. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Peter, for such a nice overview of this abstract. These results reinforce adjuvant nivolumab as a standard of care for high-risk muscle-invasive bladder cancer, offering the potential for a curative outcome for our patients. Dr. Peter Hoskin: I agree with you Neeraj. Perhaps you would like to mention Abstract 659 titled, “Additional efficacy and safety outcomes and an exploratory analysis of the impact of pathological complete response (pCR) on long-term outcomes from NIAGARA.” Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Of course. Dr. Galsky presented additional outcomes from the phase 3 NIAGARA study, which evaluated perioperative durvalumab combined with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. The study previously demonstrated a significant improvement in event-free survival and overall survival with durvalumab compared to chemotherapy alone, with a manageable safety profile and no negative impact on the ability to undergo radical cystectomy. Among the 1,063 randomized patients, those who received durvalumab had a 33% reduction in the risk of developing distant metastases or death and a 31% reduction in the risk of dying from bladder cancer compared to those who received chemotherapy alone. More patients who received durvalumab achieved a pathological complete response at the time of surgery with 37% compared to 28% in the chemotherapy-alone group. Patients who achieved a pathological complete response had better event-free survival and overall survival compared to those who did not. In both groups, durvalumab provided additional survival benefits, reducing the risk of disease progression or death by 42% and the risk of death by 28% in patients with a pathological complete response, while in those patients without a pathological complete response, the risk of disease progression or death was reduced by 23% and the risk of death by 16% when durvalumab was added to the chemotherapy. Immune-mediated adverse events occurred in 21% of patients in the durvalumab group compared to 3% in the chemotherapy-alone group, with grade 3 or higher events occurring in 3% compared to 0.2%. The most common immune-related adverse events included hypothyroidism in 10% of patients treated with durvalumab compared to 1% in the chemotherapy-alone group, and hyperthyroidism in 3% versus 0.8%. At the time of the data cutoff, these adverse events had resolved in 41% of affected patients in the durvalumab group and 44% in the chemotherapy-alone group. Dr. Peter Hoskin: Thank you, Neeraj, for the great summary. These findings further support the role of perioperative durvalumab as a potential standard of care for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: I concur with your thoughts, Peter. Before wrapping up the bladder cancer section, would you like to mention Abstract 664 reporting updated results from the EV-302 trial, which evaluated enfortumab vedotin in combination with pembrolizumab compared to chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma? Dr. Peter Hoskin: Yes, of course. Dr. Tom Powles presented updated findings from the EV-302 study, and in this abstract presented 12 months of additional follow-up for EV-302 (>2 y of median follow-up) and an exploratory analysis of patients with confirmed complete response (cCR). The study had a median follow-up of 29.1 months and previously demonstrated significant improvements in progression-free survival and overall survival with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab. This is now the standard of care in global treatment guidelines. Among the 886 randomized patients, enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 52% and the risk of death by 49% compared to chemotherapy. The survival benefit was consistent regardless of cisplatin eligibility or the presence of liver metastases. The confirmed objective response rate was higher with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab at 67.5% compared to 44.2% with chemotherapy. The median duration of response was 23.3 months with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab compared to 7.0 months with chemotherapy. A complete response was achieved in 30.4% of patients in the enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab group compared to 14.5% in the chemotherapy group, with the median duration of complete response not yet reached in the enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab group compared to 15.2 months in the chemotherapy group. Severe treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57.3% of patients treated with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab compared to 69.5% in the chemotherapy group, while in patients who achieved a complete response, severe adverse events occurred in 61.7% of those treated with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab compared to 71.9% with chemotherapy. Treatment-related deaths were reported in 1.1% of patients treated with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab compared to 0.9% with chemotherapy, with no treatment-related deaths occurring in those who achieved a complete response. These findings clearly confirm the durable efficacy of enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab, reinforcing its role as the standard of care for the first-line treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, and no new safety concerns have been identified. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you for this great summary. Moving on to kidney cancer, let's talk about Abstract 439 titled, “Nivolumab plus cabozantinib (N+C) vs sunitinib (S) for previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC): Final follow-up results from the CheckMate-9ER trial.” Dr. Peter Hoskin: Sure. Dr. Motzer presented the final results from the phase 3 CheckMate-9ER trial, which compared the combination of cabozantinib and nivolumab against sunitinib in previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma. The data after more than five years follow-up show that the combination therapy provided sustained superior efficacy compared to sunitinib. In terms of overall survival, we see an 11-month improvement in median OS, 46.5 months for the cabo-nivo versus 35.5 months for sunitinib and a 42% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death, with median progression-free survival nearly doubling – that's 16.4 months in the combination group and 8.3 months with sunitinib. Importantly, the safety profile was consistent with the known safety profiles of the individual medicines, with no new safety concerns identified. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Great summary, Peter. These data further support the efficacy of cabo-nivo combination therapy in advanced renal cell carcinoma, which is showing a 11-month difference in overall survival. Dr. Peter Hoskin: Neeraj, before wrapping up this podcast, would you like to tell us about Abstract 618? This is titled “Prospective COTRIMS (Cologne trial of retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy in metastatic seminoma) trial: Final results.” Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure, Peter. I would be delighted to. Dr Heidenrich from the University of Cologne in Germany presented the COTRIMS data evaluating retroperitoneal LN dissection in patients with clinical stage 2A/B seminomas. Seminomas are classified as 2A or B when the disease spreads to the retroperitoneal lymph nodes of up to 2 cm (CS IIA) or of more than 2 cm to up to 5 cm (CS 2B) in maximum diameter, respectively. They account for 10-15% of seminomas and they are usually treated with radiation and chemotherapy. However, radiation and chemo can be associated with long-term toxicities such as cardiovascular toxicities, diabetes, solid cancers, leukemia, particularly for younger patients. From this standpoint, Dr Heidenrich and colleagues evaluated unilateral, modified template, nerve-sparing retroperitoneal lymph node dissection as a less toxic alternative compared to chemo and radiation. They included 34 patients with negative AFP, beta-HCG, and clinical stage 2A/B seminomas. At a median follow-up of 43.2 months, the trial demonstrated great outcomes: a 99.3% treatment-free survival rate and 100% overall survival, with only four relapses. Antegrade ejaculation was preserved in 88% of patients, and severe complications such as grade 3 and 4 were observed in 12% of patients. Pathological analysis revealed metastatic seminoma in 85% of cases, with miR371 being true positive in 23 out of 24 cases and true negative in 100% of cases. It appears to be a valid biomarker for predicting the presence of lymph node metastases. These findings highlight retroperitoneal lymph node dissection is feasible; it has low morbidity, and excellent oncologic outcomes, avoiding overtreatment in 80% of patients and sparing unnecessary chemotherapy or radiotherapy in 10-15% of cases. Dr. Peter Hoskin: Great summary and important data on retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy in metastatic seminoma. These findings will help shape clinical practice. Any final remarks before we conclude today's podcast? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Before wrapping up this podcast, I would like to say that we have reviewed several abstracts addressing prostate, bladder, kidney cancers, and seminoma, which are impacting our medical practices now and in the near future. Peter, thank you for sharing your insights with us today. These updates are undoubtedly exciting for the entire GU oncology community, and we greatly appreciate your valuable contribution to the discussion and your leadership of the conference. Many thanks. Dr. Peter Hoskin: Thank you, Neeraj. Thank you for the opportunity to share this information more widely. I'm aware that whilst we have nearly 6,000 delegates, there are many other tens of thousands of colleagues around the world who need to have access to this information. And it was a great privilege to chair this ASCO GU25. So, thank you once again, Neeraj, for this opportunity to share more of this information that we discussed over those few days. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Peter. And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You will find links to the abstracts discussed today on the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  Find out more about today's speakers:   Dr. Neeraj Agarwal    @neerajaiims    Dr. Peter Hoskin Follow ASCO on social media:      @ASCO on Twitter      ASCO on Bluesky  ASCO on Facebook      ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures: Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Nektar, Lilly, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Foundation Medicine, Astellas Pharma, Lilly, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, AVEO, Calithera Biosciences, MEI Pharma, Genentech, Astellas Pharma, Foundation Medicine, and Gilead Sciences Research Funding (Institution): Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Exelixis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Calithera Biosciences, Celldex, Eisai, Genentech, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck, Lilly, Nektar, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Crispr Therapeutics, Arvinas Dr. Peter Hoskin: Research Funding (Institution): Varian Medical Systems, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Roche, Pfizer, Elekta, Bristol Myers  

Dr. Shaalan Beg and Dr. David Wang discuss key abstracts in GI cancers from the 2025 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, including major advances in CRC, neoadjuvant approaches in esophageal cancer, and innovative studies on ctDNA. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Shaalan Beg: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Shaalan Beg. I'm a medical oncologist and an adjunct associate professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. Today, we're bringing you some key highlights from the 2025 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, and I'm delighted to be joined by the chair of GI25, Dr. David Wang. Dr. Wang is a GI medical oncologist at the University of Michigan. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Dr. Wang, thanks for coming on the podcast today. Dr. David Wang: Well, thank you. It's a pleasure to be here. Dr. Shaalan Beg: GI25 featured major therapeutic advances across the spectrum of GI malignancies, and it was exciting to hear about innovations and novel approaches that are shaping the future of our field. Before we start talking about specific abstracts, could you share some of your key highlights from the meeting? Dr. David Wang: Sure. Our theme this year was “Breaking Boundaries to Enhance Patient Centered Care.” Past years' themes have focused more on precision oncology, but we wanted to broaden our focus on patients and to be more holistic, which kind of led us into some of the Intersection [sessions] that we had. Each day started with a different Intersection. The first one was “Emerging Therapies in GI Cancers”, where invited speakers talked about bispecific antibody drug conjugates, theranostics, CAR T and other cell-based therapies. The second day was on “Personalized Risk Assessment for GI Cancers,” and this included looking at polygenic risk scores for colorectal cancer, microRNAs and liquid biopsies such as exosomes and pancreatic cancer and non-endoscopic screening modalities in esophageal cancer. And on our final day, we wanted to talk about “Integrative Oncology and Integrative Medicine,” looking at evidence-based uses of acupuncture and supplements in patients who are receiving treatment for cancer, mindfulness-based practices and exercise. And of course, we had a fantastic keynote talk by Dr. Pamela Kunz from the Yale School of Medicine titled, “Disrupting Gastrointestinal Oncology: Shattering Barriers with Inclusive Science.” She highlighted the intersection of science, patient care, and health and gender equity. And I would encourage your podcast listeners to access the lecture in ASCO's Meeting Library if they haven't yet had a chance to hear Dr. Kunz's wonderful lecture.  We were really happy this year because the attendance hit a new record. We had over 5,000 people attend either in person or virtually from their home or office, and we had almost 1,000 abstracts submitted to the meeting, so these were either record or near record numbers. We offered a lot of different networking opportunities throughout the meeting, and attending found these to be incredibly rewarding and important and this will continue to be an area of emphasis in future meetings. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Let's take a deeper dive into the exciting studies presented at GI25. The late breaking abstract LBA143 was CheckMate-8HW. This was the first results of NIVO + IPI versus NIVO monotherapy for MSI-high metastatic colorectal cancer. What are your thoughts about this study? Dr. David Wang: Yeah, so we know that colorectal cancer patients with MSI-high tumors don't necessarily respond well to chemotherapy. And we were fortunate because last year CheckMate-8HW actually looked at two different arms – so this was NIVO + IPI compared to standard of care chemotherapy and showed its very significant improvement in median progression-free survival. And that was actually published in the New England Journal of Medicine back in November of 2024. This year's presentation actually focused now on NIVO + IPI versus NIVO monotherapy. And as you know IPI+NIVO can be quite toxic. So this was an important analysis to be done. So we know that NIVO is definitely more easily tolerated. So what was interesting was that the 2-year and 3-year progression-free survival not surprisingly favored IPI+NIVO and this was statistically significant. And the overall response rate was also better with IPI+NIVO versus NIVO alone. I know we're always concerned about toxicities and there were higher grade 3 and 4 toxicity incidences in the combination arm versus the monotherapy arm, but overall, only about 28 additional events in several hundred patients treated. So I think that's well-tolerated. Our discussant Dr. Wells Messersmith actually said that, with this new data, he would consider doing combination immunotherapy in any patient that presented in the front line with MSI-high or deficient mismatch repair colorectal cancer that was metastatic. Dr. Shaalan Beg: One of the focuses for directing first-line therapy for colorectal cancer has been right and left sided colon cancer because we know these are two different cancers with their own unique molecular subtypes. We heard on Abstract 17, the DEEPER trial, the final analysis of modified FOLFOXIRI plus cetuximab versus bevacizumab for RAS wild-type and left sided metastatic colorectal cancer. How do you summarize the findings of this study and what should our readers be aware of? Dr. David Wang: Interestingly, this was a phase 2 study and the emphasis of the abstract was actually a subgroup analysis of those patients with RAS wild-type and BRAF wild-type as well as left sided cancers. So, I think the entire study enrolled 359 patients, but the analysis that was discussed at the meeting really focused on 178 patients that fit that characteristic. Very similar to what we've seen in prior studies, left-sided tumors have better response to cetuximab versus bevacizumab. And if you flip it so that you now are looking at right sided tumors, targeting EGFR is actually detrimental. The depth of response was better with cetuximab in these left sided RAS and BRAF mutant tumors. And so the lead author actually suggested that this could be a new first-line standard of care. And the question is, is there a benefit of doing this triple agent regimen with modified FOLFIRINOX? We know there's a lot more toxicity with that. Not clear that there's a benefit for that over FOLFOX, maybe in younger patients that could tolerate it. When our discussant, again Dr. Wells Messersmith, spoke about this, he said that, in his practice he would, again, favor cetuximab over bevacizumab in combination with chemo, these left-sided RAS and BRAF wild-type tumors, but that he would actually prefer a doublet versus a triplet chemo regimen, and that is consistent with the current NCCN guidelines. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Another area where colorectal cancer has been a wonderful model to study new technology has been in the area of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). And the BESPOKE CRC trial is looking to see if ctDNA can inform adjuvant treatment decisions for stage II and III colorectal cancer. And in Abstract 15, we heard final results of the BESPOKE CRC sub-cohort. What were the findings there? Dr. David Wang: BESPOKE CRC is another one of these important ctDNA studies. It was an observational study, not a randomized trial, but it did provide a lot of different insights to us. We know that there were over 1,700 patients enrolled, and so it was reported that this is the largest ctDNA study in colorectal cancer performed in the United States. And they were able to analyze over 1,100 patients.  Some of the key findings were that postoperative adjuvant therapy management decisions actually changed in 1 out of 6 patients, so that's pretty significant. In terms of surveillance, we know that patients who have ctDNA positivity, this is prognostic of recurrence. In terms of patients who have positive ctDNA post-surgery, it looked like, at least in this observational study, the majority of patients who received any benefit were those who had positive ctDNA. So adjuvant therapy, even in stage II and stage III patients seemed to only benefit those patients who have positive ctDNA. I think that does raise the question, and this also was brought up in the discussion, which is “Can we de-escalate adjuvant therapy in terms of patients who are ctDNA-negative post-op?” And Dr. Richard Kim from Moffitt felt that we are not yet there. Obviously, we need randomized control trials where we are taking ctDNA results and then randomizing patients to receive adjuvant or non-adjuvant to really know the difference.  Other questions that come up with use of ctDNA include: What do you do with these patients who turn positive? This study for BESPOKE actually followed patients out to two years after surgery. So what you do with a positive ctDNA result wasn't really clear. It seems to suggest that once you turn positive, patients go on to more intensive surveillance. You know, again as an observation, patients who did turn positive were able to go to metastasis-directed therapy much more quickly. And again, this was supposedly to improve their curative intent therapy. And I think the other question that has been brought up all the time is, is this really cost effective? Patients want to know, and we want to give patients that information, but I think we're still stuck with what to do with a positive ctDNA level in a patient that's on surveillance because no randomized control studies have actually suggested that we need to start systemic therapy right away. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah. And I guess in terms of practice informing or practice changing, these results may not give us a clear answer. But because a lot of patients are asking for these tests, it does give us some real world experiences on what to expect in terms of conversion of these positive into negative and the outcome so we can have a shared decision making with our patients in the clinic and then come up with a determination on whether ctDNA for molecular residual disease is something which would be worthwhile for the care of our patient. But more to come, I guess, in coming years to answer different problems around this challenge. Dr. David Wang: Yes, I agree. Dr. Shaalan Beg: The BREAKWATER trial looked at the use of encorafenib, cetuximab and chemotherapy for BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer. We've covered this combination for a second- third-line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer previously. Abstract 16 from GI25 was evaluating the use of this regimen in the first-line space. Everyone was looking forward to these results, and what did the investigators present? Dr. David Wang: I think this is, as you mentioned, a nice follow up to later lines of therapy where Dr. Kopetz from MD Anderson pioneered use of encorafenib, cetuximab and binimetinib in the BEACON trial. Everybody was kind of curious what would happen now if you use encorafenib plus cetuximab plus chemotherapy in the first-line setting. And so this is an interim analysis that was pre-planned in the phase 3 open label BREAKWATER trial. And even though there were three arms, and so the three arms were encorafenib plus cetuximab, encorafenib plus cetuximab plus FOLFOX, or standard of care chemo, only two arms were presented in the abstract. So basically looking at encorafenib plus cetuximab and FOLFOX-6 versus standard of care therapy, and the overall response rate was statistically significant with a 60.9% overall response rate encorafenib plus cetuximab plus chemo arm versus standard of care chemo was only 40%. The interim overall survival also was different. It was 92% versus 87% at 6 months and 79% versus 66% at 12 months, again favoring the chemotherapy plus encorafenib plus cetuximab. In terms of the statistics, the p was 0.0004. However, the pre-plan analysis required the p-value to be 1x10 to the -8. And so even though this looks really good, it hasn't quite met its pre-specified significance level. The good thing is that this is only interim analysis and the study is ongoing with future analysis planned.  So the real question is: Does it matter when we actually use this regimen? We know that the regimen's approved in the second third-line setting. What about in the first line? And there was some preclinical data that the discussant reviewed that shows that patients actually benefit if this is done in the first-line setting. For example, there was some preclinical data showing that even FOLFIRI, for example, can upregulate RAS, which would make tumors more resistant to this combination. This was thought to be practice-changing in a patient that has B600E showing up treatment naive that we should probably consider this regimen. And actually this did receive accelerated FDA approval about a month ago. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, and for what it's worth, I put up a Twitter poll asking my Twitter followers on how the BREAKWATER trial results will change their approach for newly diagnosed BRAF mutated colorectal cancer. We got 112 responses; 72% said that they will incorporate encorafenib, cetuximab, FOLFOX for their frontline BRAF mutated patients. But 23% said that they would like to wait for overall survival results. Dr. David Wang: Wow, that's interesting. They really want that 1x10 to the -8. Dr. Shaalan Beg: I guess so. All right. Let's change gears and talk about esophageal cancer. LBA329 was the SCIENCE study which presented preliminary results from a randomized phase 3 trial comparing sintilimab and chemoradiotherapy plus sintilimab versus chemoradiotherapy for neoadjuvant resectable locally advanced squamous esophageal cancer. Where are we in this space? Dr. David Wang: Okay. So, yeah, this was an interesting trial. Again, just to set the context, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma is more prevalent in Asia. And the study sites as well as the patients were mostly from Asia. So this was again a phase 3 trial with interim results. They only rolled 146 out of the planned 420 for this interim analysis. And yeah, they're using immune checkpoint inhibitor that we don't use in the United States, sintilimab, combined with their two standards of neoadjuvant therapy, either chemotherapy, which is more common in Asia, or or chemoradiation, which is more common in the US and Western Europe, versus chemoradiation. And so they actually had two primary endpoints, but only were reporting one. So their two primary endpoints were pathCR and the other one was event-free survival. The event-free survival, again, was not reported at the meeting.  What they found was that in terms of pathCR rate, if you take the two arms that are really informative about that, chemoradiation plus sintilimab versus chemoradiation alone, the pathCR rate was 60% versus 47%. We know that chemo alone doesn't induce as much of a pathCR rate, and that was 13%. So it was found that the delta in terms of pathCR between the chemoradiation arms, one with sintilimab and one without, was significant. And this actually confirms data again from Asia, like for the ESCORT-NEO trial where it used another immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab in addition to neoadjuvant chemo.  So as our discussant for this abstract said, yes, we know that radiation combined with chemotherapy improves pathCR rates, but we have recent data from the ESOPEC trial, we don't know that that necessarily will translate to overall survival. So again, waiting for additional enrollments and longer term follow up before incorporating this into clinical care here. Dr. Shaalan Beg: So David, how do the results of the SCIENCE trial compare with our practice in the United States and ongoing studies asking questions for neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal carcinoma in the United States? Dr. David Wang: I think obviously immune checkpoint inhibitor in the new adjuvant setting is important. Jennifer Eads at UPenn is running that EA2174 which is looking at chemoradiation plus or minus nivolumab, and then in non-pathCR responders randomized to adjuvant nivolumab per CheckMate 577 or nivolumab with intensification adding ipilimumab. We know that the ESOPEC trial just came out, and was published actually during the meeting, and that really focuses on adenocarcinomas. So adenocarcinomas of the GE junction, distal esophagus, now, we would probably treat very similarly to gastric using perioperative FLOT. However, the standard in the US for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma remains neoadjuvant chemoradiation. We know that squamous cell carcinomas are more exquisitely sensitive to radiotherapy. And then obviously in those patients who don't achieve a pathologic complete response, the expectation would be that they would go on to receive nivolumab per CheckMate 577. Again, the thought is that these tumors are more sensitive to immunotherapy given their higher incidences of mutational changes. And so again, this kind of goes along with the positive results seen in the SCIENCE trial that we just discussed with sintilimab but also EFFECT-neo with pembrolizumab. Obviously, we await the results of Jennifer's trial. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And the last abstract I was hoping we could get your perspective on was Abstract 652, which is a Phase 3 study of everolimus plus lanreotide versus everolimus monotherapy for unresectable or recurrent gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, the STARTER-NET trial. What were the results of this study? Dr. David Wang: So, I just want to give a shout out because we did have a session at this year's GI ASCO that looked at more rare tumors. So appendiceal tumors, neuroendocrine tumors, those kinds of things. So again, I would encourage your listeners to listen to that session if they have interest in that. Another type of rare tumor was adenosquamous tumors.  But in terms of the STARTER-NET trial, this was again an interim analysis of his phase 3trial and it was looking at combining everolimus plus lanreotide versus everolimus. So we know that in pancreatic-gastric neuroendocrine tumors, if you have low Ki-67, a well differentiated tumor, that the standard of care really is a somatostatin analog, and sometimes if they're more aggressive, we kind of consider molecular targeted therapy with everolimus. This was asking the question of whether we should do the combination on the frontline. And what was interesting is in this study, the patients were actually more of a poor prognostic set. So they had Ki-67 up to 20% or these were patients that actually had multiple liver lesions. And what they found was a median for progression free survival was improved with a combination out to 29.7 months versus 11.5 months with the somatostatin analog alone, and that the overall response rate was 23% versus 8.3%, again, favoring the combination. If you looked at subgroup analysis, it was actually those patients who had Ki-67 greater than 10%, so the more aggressive tumors, or those with diffuse liver lesions that had the most benefit. So I think that would be the patient population I would consider this new combination with using would be those patients again with poorer prognosis neuroendocrine tumor phenotype. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Thank you very much, Dr. Wang, for sharing your insights with us today and your great work to build a robust GI Cancers Symposium this year. Dr. David Wang: Well, thank you. I mean that really is a cooperative effort. We appreciate all the members of the GI25 Program Committee as well as the ASCO staff that just made it an outstanding meeting. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And thank you to all our listeners for your time today. You'll find links to the abstracts discussed today on the transcript of this episode.  Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.  Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speakers:  Dr. Shaalan Beg @ShaalanBeg  Dr. David Wang Follow ASCO on social media:   @ASCO on Twitter  @ASCO on BlueSky ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn   Disclosures:  Dr. Shaalan Beg:  Employment: Science 37  Consulting or Advisory Role: Ipsen, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Cancer Commons, Legend Biotech, Foundation Medicine  Research Funding (Inst.): Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Merck Serono, Five Prime Therapeutics, MedImmune, Genentech, Immunesensor, Tolero Pharmaceuticals  Dr. David Wang: Honoraria:  Novartis Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Cardinal Health, Bristol-Myers Squibb, BeiGene, Eisai  

Dr. Jasmine Sukumar and Dr. Dionisia Quiroga discuss advances in adjuvant therapy for patients with early breast cancer and BRCA1/2 mutations, including how to identify patients who should receive genetic testing and the significant survival benefits of olaparib that emerged from the OlympiA trial. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: Hello, I'm Dr. Jasmine Sukumar, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm an assistant professor and breast medical oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. On today's episode, we'll be exploring advances in adjuvant therapy for high-risk early breast cancer in people with BRCA1/2 germline mutations. Joining me for this discussion is Dr. Dionisa Quiroga, an assistant professor and breast medical oncologist at the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Dr. Quiroga, it's great to have you on the podcast. Thanks for being here. Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: Thank you. Looking forward to discussing this important topic. Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: Let's start by going over who should be tested for BRCA1/2 genetic mutations. How do you identify patients with breast cancer in your clinic who should be offered BRCA1/2 genetic testing? Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: So, guidelines on who to offer testing to somewhat differ between organizations at this point. I would say, generally, I do follow our current ASCO-Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) Guidelines, though. Those guidelines recommend that BRCA1/2 mutation testing be offered to all patients who are diagnosed with breast cancer and are 65 years old or younger. For those that are older than 65 years old, there are additional factors to really take into account to decide on who to recommend testing for. Some of this has to do with personal and family history as well as ancestry. The NCCN also has their own specific guidelines for who to offer testing to. For example, people assigned male at birth; those who are found to have a second breast primary; those who are diagnosed at a young age; and those with significant family history should also be offered BRCA1/2 testing.  I think, very important for our discussion today, ASCO and SSO also made a very important point that all patients who may be eligible for PARP inhibitor therapy should be offered testing. So clearly this includes a large amount of our patient population. In my practice, we often refer to our Cancer Genetics Program. We're fortunate to have many experienced genetic counselors who can complete pre-test and post-test counseling with our patients. However, in settings where this may not be accessible to patients, it can also be appropriate for oncology providers to order the testing and ideally perform some of this counseling as well. Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: Thank you Dr. Quiroga. Let's next review where we are in current clinical practice guidelines. What current options do we have for adjuvant therapy specific to people with high-risk early breast cancer and BRCA1/2 genetic mutations? Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: Our current guidelines recommend adjuvant olaparib for one year for individuals with HER2-negative high risk breast cancer. This approval largely came from the data and the results of the OlympiA trial. This was a prospective phase 3, double blind, randomized clinical trial. It enrolled patients who had been diagnosed with HER2-negative early-stage breast cancer who also carried germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants of either the BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 genes. The disease also had to be considered high-risk and there were several criteria that had to be evaluated to deem whether or not these patients were high-risk. For example, those who are treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, if they had disease that was triple-negative, they needed to have some level of invasive residual disease at time of surgery. Alternatively, if the disease was hormone receptor-positive, they needed to have residual disease and a calculated CPS + EG score of 3 or higher. This scoring system is something that estimates relapse probability on the basis of clinical and pathologic stage, ER status, and histologic grade, and this will give you a score ranging from 0 to 6. In general, the higher the score, the worse the prognosis. This calculator though is available to the public online to allow providers to calculate this risk.  For the subset of patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy, for them to qualify for the OlympiA trial, if they had triple-negative disease, they needed to have a tumor of at least 2 cm or greater and/or have positive lymph nodes for disease. For hormone receptor-positive disease that was treated with adjuvant chemotherapy, they were required to have four or more pathologically confirmed positive lymph nodes at time of surgery. From this specified pool, patients were then randomized 1:1 to get either adjuvant olaparib starting at 300 mg twice a day or a matching placebo twice a day after they had completed surgery, chemotherapy and radiation treatment if needed. Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: And what were the outcomes of this study? Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: The study ended up enrolling over 1,800 patients and from these 1,800 patients, 70% had a BRCA1 mutation while 30% had a BRCA2 mutation. About 80% of the patients had triple-negative disease compared to hormone receptor-positive disease. Interestingly, about half of all patients enrolled had received neoadjuvant chemotherapy while the other half received adjuvant chemotherapy.  Looking at the outcomes, this was overall a very positive study. We actually now have outcomes data from a median of about 6 years out. This was just reported in December at the 2024 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. There was found to be a 9.4% absolute difference in six-year invasive disease-free survival favoring the olaparib arm over the placebo arm. What was also interesting is that this was consistent across multiple subgroups of patients and the benefit was really seen whether or not they had hormone receptor-positive or triple-negative disease. The absolute difference in distant disease-free survival was also high at 7.8% and additionally favored olaparib. Most importantly, there was found to be a significant overall survival benefit. The six-year overall survival was 87.5% in the olaparib group compared to 83.2% in the placebo group. This translates to about a 4.4% difference and a relative 28% overall survival benefit in using olaparib.  Now, future follow up is going to be very important. Follow up for this study is actually planned to continue out until June 2029 so we can continue to observe if these survival curves will continue to branch apart as they have so far at each follow up. And I think this is especially important for those patients diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive cancers because we know those patients are at particular risk for later recurrences.  As an additional side note, the researchers also noted that there were fewer primary malignancies in the olaparib group, not just of the breast but also primary ovarian or fallopian tube cancers as well, which is not completely surprising knowing that this drug is also heavily used and beneficial in different types of gynecologic cancers. Ultimately, the amount of adverse events reported have been low with only about 9.9% of patients receiving olaparib needing to discontinue drug due to adverse events, and this is compared to 4.2% reported in the placebo group. Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: You mentioned that the OlympiA trial showed an overall survival benefit, but interestingly the OlympiAD trial looking at olaparib versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer did not show a significant overall survival benefit. Could you discuss those differences? Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: I agree, that's a very good point. So OlympiA's comparator arm was, of course, a placebo. So while this isn't the same as comparing to chemotherapy, it does still potentially suggest that there is a degree of benefit that olaparib can provide when it's introduced in the early local disease setting compared to advanced metastatic disease. I think we need more future trials looking at potential other combinations to see if we can improve the efficacy of PARP inhibitors in the metastatic setting. Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: For patients who do choose to proceed with use of adjuvant olaparib due to the promising efficacy, what side effects should oncologists counsel their patients about? Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: The most common notable side effects, I would say with olaparib and other PARP inhibitors are really cytopenias. Gastrointestinal side effects such as nausea and vomiting can occur as well as fatigue. There are some less common but potentially more serious side effects that we should counsel our patients on. This includes pneumonitis. So counseling patients on if they're short of breath or experiencing cough to let their provider know. Venous thromboembolism can also be increased rates of occurrence. And then of course myelodysplastic syndromes or acute myeloid leukemia is something that we often are concerned about. That being said, I think it should be noted that interestingly in the OlympiA trial so far, there have been less new cases of MDS and AML in the olaparib group than actually what's been reported in the placebo group at this median follow up of over six years out. So we'll need to continue to monitor this endpoint over time, but I do think this provides some reassurance. Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: Since the initiation of the OlympiA trial, other adjuvant treatments have also been studied and FDA approved for non-metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer. So for example, the CREATE-X trial established adjuvant capecitabine as an FDA approved treatment option in patients with triple-negative breast cancer who had residual disease following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. So if a patient with triple-negative breast cancer with residual disease is eligible for both adjuvant olaparib and adjuvant capecitabine treatments, how do you decide amongst the two? Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: If a patient's eligible for both, I honestly often favor olaparib, and I do this because I find the data for adjuvant olaparib a little bit more compelling. There are also differences in toxicity profile and treatment duration between the two that I think we should discuss with patients. For example, olaparib is supposed to be taken for a year total, whereas with capecitabine we typically treat for six to eight cycles with each cycle taking three weeks. There are some who may also sequence the two drugs in very high-risk disease. However, this is very much a data free zone. We don't have any current clinical trials really comparing these two or if sequencing of these agents is appropriate. So I don't currently do this in my own clinical practice. Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: Nowadays, almost all patients with stage 2 to 3 triple-negative breast cancer will be offered neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy pembrolizumab per our KEYNOTE-522 trial data. With our current approach, pembrolizumab is continued into the adjuvant setting regardless of surgical outcome, so that patients receive a year total of immunotherapy. So in patients with residual disease and a BRCA germline mutation, do you suggest using adjuvant olaparib concurrently with pembrolizumab? Do we have any data to support that approach? Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: I do. I do use them concurrently. If a patient is eligible for adjuvant olaparib, I would use it the same way as if they were not on pembrolizumab. That being said, there are no large studies currently that have shown what the benefit or the toxicity of pembrolizumab plus olaparib are for early-stage disease. However, we do have some safety data of this combinatorial approach from other studies. For example, the phase 2/3 KEYLYNK-009 study showed that patients with advanced metastatic triple-negative breast cancer who were receiving concurrent pembrolizumab and olaparib had a manageable safety profile, particularly as the toxicities of these drugs alone don't tend to overlap. Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: And what about endocrine therapy for those that also have hormone receptor-positive disease? Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: Adjuvant endocrine therapy should definitely be continued while patients are on olaparib if they're hormone receptor-positive. An important component of this will also likely be ovarian suppression, which should include recommendation of risk reducing bilateral salpingo oophorectomy due to the risk of ovarian cancer development in patients who carry BRCA1/2 gene mutations. In most cases, this should happen at age 40 or before for those that carry a BRCA1 mutation, and at age 45 or prior for those with BRCA2 mutations. Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: And do you also consider adjuvant bisphosphonates in this context? Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: Yes. Like adjuvant endocrine therapy, adjuvant bisphosphonates were also instructed to be given according to standard guidelines in the OlympiA trial, so I would recommend use of bisphosphonates when indicated. You can refer to the ASCO Ontario Health Guidelines on Adjuvant Bone-Modifying Therapy Breast Cancer to guide that decision in order to utilize this due to multiple clinical benefits. It doesn't just help in terms of adjuvant breast cancer treatment but also reduction of fracture rate and down the line, improved breast cancer mortality.  Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: Particularly in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, another adjuvant therapy option that was not available when the OlympiA trial started are the CDK4/6 inhibitors, ribociclib and abemaciclib, based on the NATALEE and monarchE studies. So how do you consider the use of these adjuvant therapy drugs in the context of olaparib and BRCA mutations? Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: Yeah, so we are definitely in a data-free zone here. And that's in part because the NATALEE and the monarchE studies are still ongoing and reporting data out at the same time that we're getting updated OlympiA data. So unlike some of our other adjuvant treatments that we discussed, where olaparib could be safely given concurrently, the risk of myelosuppression and using both a CDK4/6 inhibitor and a PARP inhibitor at the same time would be too high. In some cases, even if a patient has a BRCA1/2 mutation, they may not meet that specified inclusion criteria that OlympiA set for what they consider to be high-risk disease. And we know from the NATALEE and the monarchE trial there are also different markers that they use to denote high-risk disease. So it's possible, for example, in the NATALEE trial that looks specifically at adjuvant ribociclib, they included a much larger pool of hormone receptor-positive early-stage breast cancers, including a subset that did not have positive axillary lymph nodes.  In cases where patients would qualify for both olaparib and a CDK4/6 inhibitor, I think this is worth a nuanced discussion with our patients about the potential benefits, risks and administration of these drugs. I think another point to bring up is the cost associated with these drugs and the length of time patients will be on for, because financial toxicity is always something that we should bring up with patients as well. When sequencing these in high-risk disease, my practice is to generally favor olaparib first due to the overall survival data. There is also some data to support that patients with BRCA1/2 germline mutations may not respond quite as well to CDK4/6 inhibitors compared to those without. But again, this is still outside of the purview of current guidelines. Fortunately, we have more potential choices for patients, and that's a good thing, but shared decision making also needs to be key. Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: And while our focus today is on adjuvant treatment for people who carry germline BRCA mutations, what about other related gene mutations such as PALB2 pathogenic variant? Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: That's a great question. Clinical trials in the advanced metastatic setting have shown that there is efficacy of olaparib in the setting for PALB2 mutations. This is largely based on the TBCRC 048 phase 2 trial and that provided a Category 2B NCCN recommendation for patients with these PALB2 gene mutations. However, we're really still lacking enough clinical data for use in early-stage disease, so I don't currently use adjuvant olaparib in this case. I am definitely eager for more data in this area as the efficacy of PARP inhibitors in PALB2 gene mutations is very compelling. I think also, in the same line, there's been some data for somatic BRCA1/2 mutations in the metastatic setting, but we still have a lack of data for the early stage setting here as well. Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: Thank you Dr. Quiroga, for sharing your valuable insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: Thank you, Dr. Sukumar. Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You'll find links to the studies discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers:   Dr. Dionisa Quiroga @quirogad @quirogad.bsky.social Dr. Jasmine Sukumar @JasmineSukumar  @jasmine.sukumar.bsky.social Follow ASCO on social media:  @ASCO on X   @ASCO on Bluesky    ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn    Disclosures: Dr. Dionisia Quiroga:  No relationships to disclose Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: Honoraria: Sanofi (Immediate Family Member)  

Native American oncologist Dr. Amanda Bruegl and Dr. Noelle LoConte discuss culturally tailored interventions and the importance of community engagement to advance cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment for Native communities. TRANSCRIPT   ASCO Daily News: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Geraldine Carroll, a reporter for the ASCO Daily News. On today's episode, we'll be discussing cancer care for Native American communities who face unique challenges and disparities in accessing and receiving cancer care. I'm delighted to be joined by two oncologists who will be sharing their insights on ways to advance cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment through culturally tailored interventions and community-based programs for high-risk Native Americans whose issues are chronically overlooked in the healthcare system, according to experts. Dr. Amanda Bruegl is an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Oregon Health and Science University School of Medicine. She is a gynecologic oncologist at the OHSU Knight Cancer Institute and a citizen of the Oneida Nation and descendant of Stockbridge-Munsee. Dr. Noelle LoConte is an associate professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin Madison Carbone Cancer Center where she also serves as a GI medical oncologist, geriatrician and leads community outreach.  Full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Dr. LoConte and Dr. Bruegl, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Noelle LoConte: Thanks so much for having me. Dr. Amanda Bruegl: Thank you for having us. ASCO Daily News: Dr. Bruegl, I'd like to start by asking you to tell us a bit about your background and how it has influenced your career and interests as a gynecologic oncologist. Dr. Amanda Bruegl: I grew up in Wisconsin and I have a Native parent and a non-Native parent. And so having an awareness of both cultural influences in my life has really shaped my interest in cancer prevention. Seeing the high rates of preventable death in cancer among Native populations in gynecologic cancers, in particular, has really driven me to dedicate my research career toward decreasing the morbidity and mortality of cervical cancer among Native women. ASCO Daily News: Well, can you tell us about your work in cancer prevention, specifically cervical cancer? The data shows that Native Americans in Oregon get cervical cancer one and a half times more than the general state population and die from it two times more often. What are the factors, the barriers, that are contributing to these high rates of cervical cancer? Dr. Amanda Bruegl: The data in Oregon is actually not just limited to Oregon.  Our group did some work in collaboration with the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board Tribal Epidemiology Center, and we found that, as you stated, the rates of cervical cancer are one and a half times that of non-Hispanic Whites and the rate of death is about twice. And that's true for the Pacific Northwest. And if you dig deeper into the literature, you see that these rates are true across Indian Country, sometimes worse. When we looked at the age groups, we found that older women had three times the rate of mortality. So looking at like 45 to 65. As I was looking through the literature to figure out, well, why is this, we found that there are very, very few funded studies that even look at this. We have a known persistent disparity that is chronically understudied and underfunded. And so I'm trying to do work in this arena to explore this further.  A follow up study that we did was looking at whether we are using the prevention tools. So it's common across the United States that we have two very powerful prevention tools. So participation in cervical cancer screening doesn't necessarily prevent cervical cancer, but you can have early detection of pre-invasive disease or detection of early-stage disease, which is highly curable. And then we also have HPV vaccination, something geared towards the youth in our communities across the U.S. HPV vaccination starting at age 9 with a goal of complete vaccination by the age of 12. So we looked at: Are we using these two tools in Indian Country? And what we found was that participation in cervical cancer screening, looking at who is up-to- date among Natives, and we found that overall the population had about 60% rates of up-to- date on cervical cancer screening compared to general US rates, which are in like the high 70s or low 80s. And then when we looked at that age group that has higher rates of mortality, we actually found that there's only about a 50% rate of up-to-date screening. So we know in one arena people aren't participating in screening. And there's a variety of different contributors to that. There's access to care. How far do you have to travel to get to a provider who will provide cervical cancer screening? Among Native women, there's an over 50% rate of history of sexual trauma, sexual violence, pelvic exam trauma. It's a huge barrier to coming in for this very sensitive exam. There is also mistrust with the medical system in general. There's high turnover of providers at Indian Health Service Clinics.  The clinic that I'm currently working at now, so I do outreach at a clinic one day a month and I'm the longest standing doc at that clinic and I'm a consultant who comes one day a month. I've been there since 2016. And so when you can't develop a relationship with a provider and develop trust and there's just this churn of new people every three to six months, developing a relationship to allow someone to feel comfortable with a very personal and private examination can be a huge barrier. On the HPV vaccination side, we found that the numbers for HPV vaccination were pretty optimistic. So the numbers have been going up since our study period started in 2015. The clinics in the Pacific Northwest that are serving Native populations are doing a great job with education, outreach and increasing the numbers. The group with the greatest rates of HPV vaccination are for people assigned female at birth in the 13-18 age group. They are the only group that is approaching the Healthy People 2030 goal. But there's still work to be done in this arena. Those are some big drivers of why this persistent disparity continues. ASCO Daily News: Absolutely. You mentioned some very serious barriers. Sexual trauma, mistrust, long distance to travel to clinics. Looking ahead, can you tell us about potential screening tools that could improve screening? And I also wanted to ask you about innovations you're excited about that could be potentially incorporated into practice to increase the ability and comfort of your patients to screening and access to HPV vaccination. Dr. Amanda Bruegl: So, in terms of cervical cancer screening and how to increase the rates, there are a number of different things in the literature broadly across populations that really show that knowledge and awareness of cervical cancer and cervical cancer screening guidelines is associated with guideline concordant care. And so ensuring that our patients in our communities know and understand what the recommendations are is very important. Efforts to provide education to women in the community, community stakeholders, and culturally tailored content can all be important for increasing the rates of cervical cancer participation.  Another thing that has the potential to really help improve screening rates is HPV self-collection. The FDA just recently approved HPV self-collection which can help empower an individual to do their own testing on their own body and not have someone else place a speculum in a private personal area where they're not comfortable. Some of the tribes in our region are starting to adopt this practice. And I just gave a talk to the regional Indian Health Service medical directors and have had really positive feedback about clinics working towards bringing this into their practice. I hope that the FDA can move forward with allowing patients to do this in the comfort of their own home. Sadly, the FDA in their evaluations decided it had to be a clinic administered test. So someone still has to go through the barrier of finding time to, if they have caregiver responsibilities or work, to have these responsibilities taken care of for someone else so they can drive to a clinic. So these barriers of transportation and caregiving are not addressed by this. It addresses some of the trauma, that barrier. And so I think in the US, we can do better about bringing this like FIT testing to our patients. I really hope and challenge our country to move forward with that a bit more. Geraldine Carroll: Thanks, Dr. Bruegl. I'll come back to you in a moment, but first I'd like to switch gears and address some of the challenges faced by Native communities in Wisconsin that were featured in a fascinating study presented by our guest, Dr. Noelle LoConte, at the recent ASCO Quality Care Symposium. The study found that radon levels in Native lands in Wisconsin were much higher than anticipated and may explain higher rates of lung cancer among Native communities in the state. Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the U.S. So, Dr. LoConte, can you tell us more about this study and your incredible partnership with the Stockbridge-Munsee Band of the Mohican Nation Health Center in this work? Dr. Noelle LoConte: You bet. Thanks for the interest. First of all, I think it's just an incredible privilege to work with all of these communities. So, I wanted to say at the jump that this was a joint project led by the cancer center that I'm affiliated with, but also with the Stockbridge-Munsee community. They approved the project and they designed it with us, and they retain ownership of the data. Data sovereignty is an important issue when you're doing this work. But we came to them wanting to work on something around cancer. I actually thought maybe colorectal cancer screening. But in meeting with the health center and the tribal community members, it became clear that they were more concerned that they had intergenerational rates of cancer, and they felt that they were being poisoned by their land. And that brought me to the state Environmental Health Program. And we looked at some data and realized, one, their lung cancer rates were quite high, but two, their radon testing rates were quite low. And that that was a place where we thought we couldn't make some forward momentum.  So, we designed a program to educate around radon and radon testing and mitigation and then tested all the homes on the reservation. And we successfully tested all homes for radon and then successfully mitigated all the homes that tested over four picocuries per liter, which is the recommended level at which you should mitigate per the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency. The statewide average for Wisconsin is 10% positive. And amongst homes that had a basement, which is thought to be the highest risk kind of dwelling in the Stockbridge-Munsee Reservation community, the positive rate was 77%. And when you take all the homes together because we had some homes with crawl spaces or slab foundation, it was around, I believe, 55% positive, so much higher than 10%. ASCO Daily News: Well, that data is just striking. Your study certainly illustrates the vital role that cancer centers can play in mitigating structural determinants of health among Native communities, such as with housing quality. Do you think this will inspire a similar approach in other regions of the country?  Dr. Noelle LoConte: Yeah, I think this work was possible because of philanthropy. It is very, very hard to get grant funding for mitigation, in particular. Mitigation is usually done once in the life of the dwelling, but it is very, very expensive. A cheap mitigation is $750, and many are many thousands of dollars especially when you're looking at very rural communities where there's not really a mitigator within hundreds of miles and you have to really negotiate to get somebody to come out there. Every cancer center that's designated by the National Cancer Institute has to have a community outreach and engagement unit or program. I would argue that rather than us generating reports describing disparities, that this kind of work to actually dismantle these determinants of health and move power back into the community is an ideal role for a cancer center. But the funding was definitely a tricky piece of it. And I would hope that we could either envision funding mechanisms that allow for this kind of direct service to communities, or we can continue to work with philanthropic agencies to fund this. ASCO Daily News: Well, looking through a wider lens at the experience of Native communities navigating cancer care, I'd like to ask each of you to comment on how you think the oncology community can better support and serve high-risk Native populations. What message would you like oncologists to take away from this discussion today? Dr. Bruegl, would you like to respond first? Dr. Amanda Bruegl: There's so many layers to needs in our communities. First and foremost, it's important to understand that American Indians and Alaska Natives are sovereign people, sovereign nations. We've been written into the US Constitution as citizens of our own tribes. And it's important to remember that when working with our populations. I think it's also really important to remember that there's treaty law that promised healthcare to our communities. And you see that we are underfunded in all aspects of healthcare, and it's a driver. And people on the healthcare side of things need to remember we represent the failures of the healthcare system to care for our Native communities. Whether or not you wake up in the morning with a goal to help, you have to remember that you represent the institution and the history of this country and are going to be asked to prove yourself in a genuine fashion. And that takes time.  I think for people who are in research, it's really important to think about how do you engage and partner with tribal communities so that we're not chronically left behind and left out of study? We seldom show up in the data, and we have to find our own data. Tribal epidemiology centers have been really paramount in helping tribes get access to their data and analyze their data. But you can see in trial after trial after trial, we're sort of shoved into the other box. And so it's so difficult to understand how the cancer story relates to us and how do we improve it? ASCO Daily News: Thank you, Dr. Bruegl. Dr. LoConte, would you like to comment on this as well? Dr. Noelle LoConte: Yeah. I had jotted down a few points. Many are going to be a little bit of a repetition here, but I think the overarching theme is that the goals for academic medicine often are not the goals of the community that you may be seeking to work in, and so being able to pivot was key to the success of my project, I think.  Can't underestimate the importance of trust. And trust takes a lot of time and a lot of showing up and a lot of being consistent and delivering on what you say you're going to do. And there's a lot of turnover in academic medicine. People leave institutions, move on for promotions. None of that is going to help strengthen these relationships. So I think institutions would be wise to invest in people that stay. I think there should be things like retention bonuses for those of us that stay in places and do community work. It's certainly not the sexy stuff. It's not what gets you in the Plenary at the ASCO Annual Meeting, for example, but I was beyond delighted that I was on the podium for the ASCO Quality Care Symposium. And I think continuing to elevate this work as meaningful and important work, just as important as clinical trials and new drugs, is really important.  I would like to second the motion or the thought that we need to support full funding for the Indian Health Services. It is a promise we made that we continue to underdeliver on that continues to harm patients every day, particularly in the latter half of the year when they run out of funding pretty consistently. For those of us that are non-Native doing this work, to know the history of the community that you're working in and be really mindful of that but also know the role that your institution played in propagating some of these harms. And I think we need more Native physicians that really will help to have concordance with patients and physicians. And so as much as we can support getting more Native folks starting really early – high school, middle school, interested in medicine and biomedical research, all the way through medical school residency fellowship would be really, really impactful. We have a program here founded by Amanda's husband called the Native American Center for Health Professions, or NACHP. It's really a feather in our cap here and I would love to see all medical schools have some sort of pathway program like that. We won't get out of this hole until we start to really take that seriously. ASCO Daily News: Well, thank you so much, Dr. LoConte and Dr. Bruegl for taking the time and showing up for Native communities, and all your work to advance cancer care. We are certainly very grateful for your time today and we will embed links to all of the studies discussed in the transcript of this episode. So thank you again, Dr. LoConte and Dr. Bruegl. Dr. Noelle LoConte: You're welcome. Dr. Amanda Bruegl: Thank you for having us. ASCO Daily News: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. Again, you'll find links to the studies we discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers:  Dr. Amanda Bruegl   Dr. Noelle LoConte @noelleloconte.bsky.social   Follow ASCO on social media:   @ASCO on Twitter   ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn   Disclosures:   Dr. Amanda Bruegl – No relationships to disclose Dr. Noelle LoConte: Consulting or Advisory Role: Abbvie, PDGx Research Funding: Exact Sciences  

Dr. Nathan Pennell and Dr. John Sweetenham discuss the evolving landscape of oncology in 2025 and the challenges oncologists will be facing, including the impact of Medicare drug price negotiations, ongoing drug shortages, and the promising role of AI and telehealth in improving patient outcomes and access to clinical trials. TRANSCRIPT Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. 2025 promises to be a year of continued progress in drug development, patient care, and technological innovations that will shape the future of cancer care. Oncologists will also be grappling with some familiar challenges in oncology practice and probably face a few new ones as well. I'm delighted to be joined today by Dr. Nathan Pennell to discuss some of these challenges. Dr. Pennell is the co-director of the Cleveland Clinic Lung Cancer Program and vice chair of clinical research at the Taussig Cancer Center. He also serves as the editor-in-chief of the ASCO Educational Book.  You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode.  Nate, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Thanks for inviting me, John. I'm excited to be here. Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks. So, Nate, we've been hearing a lot recently about implementation science in oncology particularly. This has been the case, I would say, over the past decade and of course the goal is to how do we figure out the best way to integrate evidence-based practice into oncology care? There's been a lot of very good guidance from organizations like ASCO and every year we're reminded of the need for clinical decision support for practicing oncologists at the point of care. Although I think we all agree it is the right thing to do, and this has been a matter of discussion for probably more than 10 years, for the most part, I don't think we've really got there. Some big practices probably have a truly well-integrated clinical decision support tool, but for many of us this is still lacking in the field. I wonder whether we do need some kind of global clinical decision support tool. What do you think about the future of clinical decision support at the point of care? And do you think this is going to continue to be a need? Dr. Nathan Pennell: I think that's a fantastic question and it absolutely is something we're going to continue to work towards. We're in an incredibly exciting time in oncology. We've got all these exciting predictive biomarkers, effective treatments that are working better than anything we've had in our careers up to this point. But when we actually look to see who is benefiting from them, what we find is that outside of clinical trial populations, many of our patients aren't actually accessing these. And so publications that look at real-world use of these, one that jumps to mind for me is a publication looking at biomarker testing for driver oncogenes in lung cancer showed that while everyone who treats lung cancer says, “Absolutely, we need to test for biomarkers such as EGFR mutations,” in the real world, probably only slightly over a third of people ever access these drugs because there are so many different gaps in care that fall through the cracks. And so decision support is absolutely critical.  You mentioned this has been going on for a decade. Actually, the Institute of Medicine in 2013 recommended that with the uptake of electronic medical records, that we move forward with building these true learning health care systems that would improve quality and use every patient's information to help inform their care. And in 2023, as a representative of ASCO, I was able to look back at the last decade, and the uniform conclusion was that we had failed to build this learning health care system. So, what can we do going forward? The good news is there are improvements in technology. There are, for better or for worse, some consolidation of electronic medical records that has allowed larger numbers of patients to sort of have data sets shared. ASCO started CancerLinQ to try to improve quality, which is now part of OpenAI, and is still working on technology solutions to help provide decision support as we are better able to access patient data. And I think we're going to talk a little bit later about some of the technological advances that are going on in artificial intelligence that are really going to help improve this. So I think this is very close to impacting patient care and improving quality of care. I think for, as you'd mentioned, large health care systems and users of the major EMRs, this is going to be extremely close. Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Nate. And just to extend the conversation into another area, one of the constant, I think, pain points for practicing oncologists has been the issue of prior authorization and the amount of time and energy it takes to deal with insurance denials in cancer care. And I think in a way, these two things are linked in as much as if we had clinical decision support tools at the point of care which were truly functional, then hopefully there would be a more facile way for an oncologist to be able to determine whether the patient in front of him or her is actually covered for the treatment that the oncologist wants to prescribe. But nevertheless, we're really not there yet, although, I think we're on the way to being there. But it does remain, like I said, a real pain point for oncologists.  I wonder if you have any thoughts on the issue of prior authorization and whether you see in the coming year anything which is going to help practicing oncologists to overcome the time and effort that they spend in this space. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I think many oncologists would have to list this among, if not the least favorite aspects of our job these days is dealing with insurance, dealing with prior authorizations. We understand that health care is incredibly expensive. We understand that oncology drugs and tests are even more expensive, probably among, if not the most rapidly growing costs to the health care system in the U.S., which is already at about 20% of our GDP every year. And so I understand the concern that costs are potentially unsustainable in the long term. Unfortunately, the major efforts to contain these costs seem to have fallen on the group that we would least like to be in charge of that, which are the payers and insurance companies, through use of prior authorization. And this is good in concept, utilization review, making sure that things are appropriate, not overutilizing our expensive treatments, that makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, it's moved beyond expensive treatments that have limited utility to more or less everything, no matter how inexpensive or standard. And there's now multiple publications suggesting that this is taking on massive amounts of time. Some even estimated that for each physician it's a full 40-hour work week per physician from someone to manage prior authorizations, which costs billions of dollars for practices every year. And so this is definitely a major pain point.  It is, however, an area where I'm kind of optimistic, maybe not necessarily in 2025, but in the coming several years with some of the technology solutions that are coming out, as we've talked about, with things like clinical pathways and whatnot, where the insurance company approvals can be tied directly to some of these guideline concordance pathway tools. So the recent publication at the ASCO Quality [Care] Symposium looking at a radiation oncology practice that had a guideline concordant prior auth tool that showed there was massive decrease in denials by using this. And as this gets rolled out more broadly, I think that this can increase the concept of gold carding, where if practices follow these clinical guidelines to a certain extent, they may be even exempt from prior authorization. I think I can envision that this is very close to potentially removing this as a major problem. I know that ASCO certainly has advocated on the national level for changes to this through, for example, advocating for the Improving Seniors Timely Access to Care Act. But I think, unfortunately, the recent election, I'm not sure how much progress will be made on the national level for progress in this. So I think that the market solutions with some of the technology interventions may be the best hope. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, thanks. You raised a couple of other important points in that answer, Nate, which I'll pick up on now. You mentioned drug prices, and of course, during 2025, we're going to see Medicare negotiating drug prices. And we've already seen, I think, early effects from that. But I think it's going to be really interesting to see how this rolls out for our cancer patients in 2025. And of course, the thing that we can't really tell at the moment that you've alluded to is how all this is going to evolve with the new administration of President Trump. I understand, of course, that none of us really knows at this point; it's too early to know what the new administration will do. But would you care to comment on this in any way and about your concerns and hopes for Medicare specifically and what the administration will do to cancer care in general? Dr. Nathan Pennell: I think all of us are naturally a little bit anxious about what's going to happen under the new administration. The good news, if there's good news, is that under the first Trump administration, the National Cancer Institute and cancer care in general was pretty broadly supported both in Congress and by the administration. And if we look at specifically negotiating drug prices by Medicare, you can envision that having a businessman president who prides himself in negotiations might be something that would be supported and perhaps even expanded under the incoming Trump administration. So I think that's not too hard to imagine, although we don't really know. On the other hand, there are very valid concerns about what's going to happen with the Affordable Care Act, with Medicaid expansion, with protections for preexisting conditions, which impact our patients with cancer. And obviously there are potential people in the new administration who perhaps lack trust in traditional evidence-based medicine, vaccines, things like that, which we're not sure where they're going to fall in terms of the health care landscape, but certainly something we'll have to watch out for. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah. Certainly, when we regroup to record next year's podcast, we may have a clearer picture of how that's going to play out. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I mean, if there's anything good from this, it's that cancer has always been a bipartisan issue that people support. And so I don't want to be too negative about this. I do think that public support for cancer is likely to continue. And so overall, I think we'll probably be okay. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, I agree with that. And I think one of the things that's important to remember, I do remember that one of the institutions I've worked at previously that there from time to time was some discussion about politics and cancer care. And the quote that I always remember is “We all belong to the cancer party,” and that's what's really important. So let's just keep our eye on the board. I hope that we can do that.  I'm going to switch gears just a little bit now because another issue which has been quite prominent in 2024 and in a few years before that has been supply chain issues and drug shortages. We've seen this over many years now, but obviously the problems have apparently been exacerbated in recent years, particularly by climate events. But certainly ASCO has published some recommendations in terms of quality care delivery for patients with cancer. Can you tell us a little bit about how you think this will go in the coming year and what we can do to address some of the concerns that are there over drug shortages? Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yeah. This continues to be, I think, a surprising issue for many oncologists because it has been going on for a long time, but really hasn't been in the public eye. The general problem is that once drugs go off patent and become generic, they often have limited manufacturers that are often outside the U.S. sometimes even a single manufacturer, which leaves them extremely vulnerable to supply chain disruption issues or regulatory issues. So situations where the FDA inspects and decides that they're not manufacturing things up to snuff and suddenly the only manufacturer is temporarily shut down. And then as you mentioned, things like extreme weather events where we had Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico and suddenly we have no bags of saline for several months. And so these are major issues which I think have benefited from being in the public eye.  ASCO, on the one hand, has, I think, done an excellent job leading on what to do in scenarios where there are shortages. But I think more importantly, we need more attention on a national level to policy changes that would help prevent this in the future. Some suggestions have been to increase some of the oversight of the FDA into supply chain issues and generic drugs, perhaps forming more of an early warning system to anticipate shortages so that we can find workarounds, find alternative suppliers that perhaps aren't currently being widely utilized. We can advocate for our legislators to pass legislation to support drug production for vital agents through things like long term contracts or even guaranteed pricing that might also even encourage U.S. manufacturers to take back up generic drugs if they were able to make it profitable. And then finally, I think just more of a national coordinated approach rather than the piecemeal approach we've done in the past. I remember when we had a platinum [drug] shortage last year. Our institution, with massive resources in our pharmacy, really did an excellent job of making sure that we always had enough supply. We never actually saw that shortage in real time, but I know a lot of places did not have those resources and therefore were really struggling. And so I think more of a coordinated approach with communication and awareness so that we can try to prevent this from happening. Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Nate. And you raised the issue of major weather events, and I'd like to pick up on that for just a moment to talk about climate change. We now know that there is a growing body of evidence showing that climate change impacts cancer care. And it does it in a lot of ways. I mean, the most obvious is disrupting care delivery during one of these major events. But there are also issues about increased exposure to carcinogens, reduced access to food, reduced access to cancer screenings during these major disasters. And the recent hurricanes, of course, have highlighted the need for cancer centers to have robust disaster preparedness plans. In addition to that, obviously there are questions about greenhouse gas emissions and how cancer centers and health care organizations handle that.  But what do you see for 2025 in this regard? And what's your thinking about how well we're prepared as deliverers of cancer care to deal with these climate change issues? Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yeah, that is sobering to look at some of the things that have happened with climate change in recent years. I would love to say that I think that from a national level, we will see these changes and proactively work to reduce greenhouse emissions so that we can reduce these issues in the future. I'm not sure what we're going to see from the incoming administration and current government in terms of national policy on changes for fossil fuel use and climate change. I worry that there's a chance that we may see less done on the national level. I know the NCI certainly has policies in place to try to study climate change impact on cancer. It's possible that even that policy could be impacted by the incoming administration. So we'll have to see.  So, unfortunately, I worry that we may be still dealing in a reactive way to the impacts of this. So, obviously, wildfires causing carcinogens, pollution leading to increased cancer incidence, obviously, major weather events leading to physical disruptions, where cancer centers definitely have to have plans in place to help people maintain their treatment during those periods. As an individual, we can certainly make our impact on climate change. There are certainly organizations like Oncologists United for Climate and Health, or so-called OUCH, led by Dr. Joan Schiller, a friend of mine in the lung cancer world, where oncologists are advocating for policies to reduce use of fossil fuels. But I don't know, John, I don't know if I'm hopeful that there's going to be major policy changes on this in the coming year. Dr. John Sweetenham: I suspect you're right about that, although I think on the positive side, I think the issue as a whole is getting a lot more attention than it was maybe even two or three years ago. So that has to be a good thing that there's more advocacy and more attention out there now.  Nate, before we go on to the last question, because I do want to finish on a positive note, I just wanted to mention briefly that there are a couple of ongoing issues which, when we do this podcast each year, we normally address, and they certainly haven't gone away. But we know that burnout and workforce issues in oncology will continue to be a big challenge. The workforce issues may or may not be exacerbated by whatever the new administration's approach to immigration is going to be, because that could easily significantly affect the workforce in oncology. So that's one issue around workforce and burnout that we are not addressing in detail this year. But I wanted to raise it just because it certainly hasn't gone away and is going to continue to challenge us in 2025.  And then the other one, which I kind of put in the same category, is that of disparities. We continue to see ethnic and racial disparities of care. We continue to see disparities in rural areas. And I certainly wouldn't want to minimize the challenges that these are likely to continue to present in 2025. I wonder if you just have any brief comments you'd like to make and whether you think we're headed in the right direction with those issues. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Well, I'm somewhat optimistic in some ways about burnout. And I think when we get to our final topic, I think some of that may help. There may be some technology changes that may help reduce some of the influences of burnout. Disparities in care, obviously, I think similarly to some of the other issues we talked about have really benefited from just a lot of attention being cast on that. But again, I actually am optimistic that there are some technology changes that are going to help reduce some disparities in care. Dr. John Sweetenham: It's always great to finish one of these conversations on a positive note, and I think there is a lot to be very positive about. As you mentioned right at the beginning of the podcast, we continue to see quite extraordinary advances, remarkable advances in all fields of oncology in the therapeutic area, with just a massive expansion in not only our understanding, but also resulting from that improved understanding of the biology of the disease, the treatment advances that have come along. And so I think undoubtedly, we're going to see continued progress during 2025. And I know that there are technology solutions that you've mentioned already that you're very excited about. So, I'd really like to finish today by asking you if you could tell us a little about those and in particular what you're excited about for 2025. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yeah. It's always dangerous to ask me to nerd out a little bit about some of these technology things, but I don't think that we can end any conversation about technology and not discuss the potential for artificial intelligence (AI) in health care and oncology. AI is sort of everywhere in the media and sort of already worked its way into our lives in our phones and apps that we're using and whatnot. But some of what I am seeing in tools that are probably going to be here very soon and, in some cases, already arriving, are pretty remarkable.  So some of the advances in natural language processing, or NLP, which in the past has been a barrier to really mining the vast amounts of patient information in the electronic medical record, is so much better now. So now, we can actually use technology to read doctor's notes, to read through scanned PDFs in our EMRs. And we can imagine that it's going to become very soon, much harder to miss abnormal labs, going to be much harder to miss findings on scans such as pulmonary nodules that get picked up incidentally. It's going to be much easier to keep up with new developments as clinical guidelines get worked in and decision support tools start reminding patients and physicians about evidence-based, high-quality recommendations. Being able to identify patients who are eligible for clinical trials is going to become much more easy.  And that leads me to the second thing, which is, throughout the pandemic we have greatly increased our use of telehealth, and this really has the potential to reduce disparities in care by reaching patients basically wherever they are. This is going to disproportionately allow us to access rural patients, patients that are currently underrepresented in clinical trials and whatnot, being able to present patients for clinical trials. In the recent “State of Cancer Care in America” report from ASCO, more than 60% of patients in the U.S. did not have access to clinical trials. And now we have the technology to screen them, identify them and reach out to and potentially enroll them in trials through use of decentralized elements for clinical trials. And so I'm very optimistic that not just good quality standard cancer care, but also clinical research is going to be greatly expanded with the use of AI and telehealth. Dr. John Sweetenham: Really encouraging to hear that. Nate, it's been a real pleasure speaking with you today and I want to thank you for taking the time to share your insights with us on the ASCO Daily News Podcast.  Dr. Nathan Pennell: Thanks, John. Dr. John Sweetenham: I also want to say thank you to our listeners for your time today. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speakers: Dr. Nathan Pennell @n8pennell   Dr. John Sweetenham   Follow ASCO on social media:    @ASCO on Twitter    ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures:   Dr. John Sweetenham:   Consulting or Advisory Role: EMA Wellness   Dr. Nathan Pennell:     Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Cota Healthcare, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Viosera, Xencor, Mirati Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Sanofi/Regeneron    Research Funding (Inst): Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, Loxo, Altor BioScience, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Jounce Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Heat Biologics, WindMIL, Sanofi  

Dr. Linda Duska and Dr. Domenica Lorusso discuss the practice-changing results of the phase 3 ENGOT-cx11/GOG-3047/KEYNOTE-A18 study, which evaluated pembrolizumab plus chemoradiotherapy as treatment for previously untreated, high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer. TRANSCRIPT  Dr. Linda Duska: Hello, I'm Linda Duska, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and serve as the associate dean for clinical research at the University of Virginia School of Medicine. On today's episode, we'll be discussing a new standard of care for previously untreated, high- risk locally advanced cervical cancer. This follows the ENGOT-cx11/GOG-3047/KEYNOTE-A18 study, which I will be referring to as KEYNOTE-A18 for the rest of this podcast, which demonstrated that pembrolizumab plus chemoradiotherapy improved both progression-free and overall survival compared to chemoradiotherapy alone. I was a co-author of this study, and I'm delighted to be joined today by the study's lead investigator, Dr. Domenica Lorusso, for today's discussion. She is also a professor of obstetrics and gynecology. She's at Humanitas University Rosano and the director of the Gynecologic Oncology Unit at the Humanitas Hospital San Pio in Milan, Italy. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Lorusso, it's great to be speaking with you today. Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Thank you, Linda. It's a great pleasure to be here. Thank you. Dr. Linda Duska: So I was hoping you could start us out with some context on the challenges associated with treating patients with high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer. Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Yes. I have to make a disclosure because in my experience as a gynecologist, cervical cancer patients are the most difficult patients to treat. This is a tumor that involves young patients [who often have] small kids. This is a very symptomatic tumor. More than 50% of patients report pain. Sometimes the pain is difficult to control because there is an infiltration of the pelvic nerves and also a kind of vaginal discharge, so it's very difficult to treat the tumor. Since more than 25 years, we have the publication of 5 randomized trials that demonstrate that when we combine platinum chemotherapy to radiation treatment, we increase overall survival by 6%. This is the new standard of care – concurrent chemoradiation plus brachytherapy. This is a good standard of care because particularly modern, image-guided radiotherapy has reported to increase local control. And local control in cervical cancer translates to better overall survival. So modern radiotherapy actually is able to cure about 75% of patients. This is what we expect with chemoradiation right now. Dr. Linda Duska: So what are the key takeaways of A18? This is a really exciting trial, and you've presented it a couple of times. Tell us what are the key takeaways that you want our listeners to know. Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Linda, this is our trial. This is a trial that we did together. And you gave me the inspiration because you were running a randomized phase 2 trial exploring if the combination of pembrolizumab to concurrent chemoradiation was able to give signals of efficacy, but also was feasible in terms of toxicity. There were several clinical data suggesting that when we combine immunotherapy to radiotherapy, we can potentially increase the benefit of radiotherapy because there is a kind of synergistic effect between the two strategies. Radiotherapy works as a primer and immunotherapy works better. And you demonstrated that it was feasible to combine immunotherapy to concurrent chemoradiation. And KEYNOTE-A18 was based on this preliminary data. We randomized about 1,060 patients to receive concurrent chemoradiation and brachytherapy or concurrent chemoradiation and brachytherapy in combination with pembrolizumab followed by pembrolizumab for about two years. Why two years? Because in more than 80% of cases, recurrence in this patient population occurred during the first two years. So the duration of treatment was based on the idea to provide protection to the patient during the maximum time of risk. And the trial had the two primary endpoints, progression free and overall survival, and met both the endpoints, a significant 30% reduction in the risk of progression that was confirmed. At the 3-year follow up, the observation was even better, 0.68. So 32% reduction in the risk of progression. And more importantly, because this is a curative setting, 33% reduction in the risk of death was reported in the experimental arm when pembro was combined with chemoradiation. Dr. Linda Duska: That's amazing. I wanted to ask you, a prior similar study called CALLA was negative. Why do you think A18 was positive? Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Linda, there are several discussions about that. I had the possibility to discuss several times with the PI of CALLA, Brad Monk. The idea of Brad is that CALLA was negative because of using durvalumab instead of PD-1 inhibitor, which is pembrolizumab. I do not have exactly the same impression. My idea is that it's the kind of patient population enrolled. The patient population enrolled in KEYNOTE-A18 was really a high-risk population; 85% of that patient were node positive, where the definition of node positivity was at least 2 lymph nodes in the pelvis with a short diameter of 1.5. So, we are very confident this patient was node-positive, 55% at the grade 3 and 4 diseases. So this is really a high-risk population. I remember at the first presentation of CALLA, I was honored to discuss the CALLA trial when it was first presented at IGCS a few years ago. And when I received the forest plot of Calla, it was evident to me that in patients with stage III and node positive there was a signal of efficacy. And we have a huge number of patients with node positive. So in my opinion this is the reason why KEYNOTE-A18 is positive. Dr. Linda Duska: Yeah, I agree with you. I've thought about it a lot and I think you're right about that. The INTERLACE trial results were recently published. How should we interpret these results in the context of A18? Dr. Domenica Lorusso: So it's very difficult to compare the 2 trials. First of all, in terms of population. The population enrolled in INTERLACE is a low-risk, locally advanced but low risk population; 76% were stage II, 10% were stage I, 60% were node-negative patients. So, first of all, the population is completely different. Second is the type of radiotherapy that was provided. INTERLACE is a 10-year long trial, but in 10 years the quality and the technique of radiotherapy completely changed. Only 30% of patients in INTERLACE received what we call the modern image-guided brachytherapy, which is important because it provides local control and local control increases overall survival. And third, we read the paper. I'm not a methodologist, but there are some methodological biases in the paper. All the statistical design of the trial was based on PFS, but PFS was evaluated at physician description. And honestly, I never saw a trial that had no pre-specified timeline for radiological evaluation. It's very difficult to evaluate progression in cervical cancer because the fibrosis related to radiotherapy changes the anatomy in the pelvis. And I think that the radiological evaluation is important to address if the patient is progressing or not. Particularly, because the conclusion of CALLA is that the PFS was mainly in favor of distant metastasis. So really, it's difficult for me to understand how distant metastasis may be evaluated with the vagina visit. So really, it's very difficult to compare the two trials, but I have some concerns. And also because of toxicity in the study, unfortunately 30% of patients did not complete concurrent chemoradiation because of residual toxicity due to induction chemotherapy. So I wanted to be sure in the context of modern radiotherapy, if really induction chemo adds something to modern radiotherapy. Dr. Linda Duska: Well, I have two more questions for you. As we move immunotherapy into the front line, at least for these high risk locally advanced cervical cancer patients that were eligible for A18, what does that mean then for hopefully those few that develop recurrence in terms of second line therapy? Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Well, Linda, this is a very important question. We do not have data about immuno after immuno, but I would not completely exclude this hypothesis because in KEYNOTE-A18, the patient received treatment for a well-defined time period. And for those patients not progressing during immunotherapy, I really guess if there is a space for the reintroduction of immunotherapy at the time of recurrence. In this moment we have 30% of patients in KEYNOTE-A18 in the control arm that receive immunotherapy after progression, but still we have 11% of patients that receive immunotherapy in combination with concurrent chemoradiation and then receive, again, immunotherapy in later line of therapy. I think we need to collect these data to capture some signals and for sure we have the new drug. We have antibody drug conjugate. The trials are ongoing exploring the role of antibody drug conjugate, particularly in immune pretreated patients. So I think this is a very interesting strategy. Dr. Linda Duska: I was going to ask you, “What are the next steps,” but I think you already answered that question. You talked about the second line. If you were going to redesign a study in the frontline, what would it look like? Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Probably one question that I would like to answer – there are two questions in my opinion in KEYNOTE-A18 – one is induction immunotherapy. Linda, correct me if I'm wrong, you reported very interesting data about the immune landscape change when you use induction immunotherapy. And I think this is something that we need to explore in the future. And the second question is the duration of maintenance. Because, again, we decided for two years based only on the epidemiology of recurrence, but I guess if one year may be enough. Dr. Linda Duska: I think this sequencing question is really important, that the induction immunotherapy was actually GY017. I can't take credit for that, but I think you're right. I think the sequencing question is really important. Whether you need the concurrent IO or not is an important question. And then to your point about the 2 years, the length of the need for maintenance therapy is a question that we don't know the answer to. So there are lots of really important questions we can continue to ask. I want to thank you so much for sharing your valuable insights with us on the podcast today. You're always so thoughtful about this particular study and cervix cancer in general and also for your great work to advance the care for patients with GYN cancers. Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Thank you, Linda. It's our work - we progress together. Dr. Linda Duska: Yes. And we thank the patients as well. The over 1,000 patients that went on this trial during a pandemic. Right? Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Absolutely. Without their generosity and their trust, we would not be able to do this trial. Dr. Linda Duska: So we're very grateful to them and we thank our listeners for your time today. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you all.   Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Follow today's speakers:  Dr. Linda Duska @Lduska Dr. Domenica Lorusso   Follow ASCO on social media:   @ASCO on Twitter   ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures:   Dr. Linda Duska: Consulting or Advisory Role: Regeneron, Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Ellipses Pharma Research Funding (Inst.): GlaxoSmithKline, Millenium, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Aeterna Zentaris, Novartis, Abbvie, Tesaro, Cerulean Pharma, Aduro Biotech, Advaxis, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Leap Therapeutics Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: UptToDate, Editor, British Journal of Ob/Gyn Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Consulting or Advisory Role: PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, Genmab, Seagen, Immunogen, Oncoinvest, Corcept, Sutro Biopharma, Novartis, Novocure, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly Speakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, MSD, ImmunoGen, Seagen Research Funding (Inst.): PharmMar, Clovis, GSK, MSD, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, Seagen, Immunogen, Incyte, Roche, Pharma&, Corcept Therapeutics, Alkermes Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, Menarini  

Dr. Ryan Augustin and Dr. Jason Luke discuss neoadjuvant immunotherapy and the importance of multidisciplinary team coordination, promising new TIL therapy for advanced melanoma, and the emerging role of CD3 engagers in treatment strategies. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Ryan Augustin: Hello, I'm Dr. Ryan Augustin, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm a medical oncology fellow at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Joining me today is Dr. Jason Luke, an associate professor of medicine and the director of the Cancer Immunotherapeutic Center at the University of Pittsburgh Hillman Cancer Center. I had the privilege of working as a postdoc in Jason's translational bioinformatics lab, where we investigated mechanisms of resistance to immunotherapy in melanoma and other cancers.  Today, we'll be discussing 3 important topics, including neoadjuvant immunotherapy and the importance of multidisciplinary team coordination, the impact and practical considerations for incorporating TIL therapy into melanoma, and the current and future use of CD3 engagers in both uveal and cutaneous melanoma.  You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode.  Jason, it's great to have this opportunity to speak with you today. Dr. Jason Luke: Absolutely. Thanks, Ryan. It's great to see you. Dr. Ryan Augustin: So, to kick things off, Jason, we, of course, have seen tremendous advances in cancer immunotherapy, not only in metastatic disease but also the perioperative setting. Recent data have shown that the use of neoadjuvant therapy can provide not only critical prognostic information but can also help individualize post-resection treatment strategies and potentially even eliminate adjuvant therapy altogether in patients who achieve a pathologic, complete response. This signifies a conceptual shift in oncology with the goal of curing patients with immunotherapy. In triple-negative breast cancer, the KEYNOTE-522 regimen with pembrolizumab is standard of care. In non-small cell lung cancer, there are now four FDA approved chemo-IO regimens in both the neoadjuvant and perioperative settings. And, of course, in melanoma, starting with SWOG S1801 utilizing pembro mono therapy, and now with combined CTLA-4 PD-1 blockade based on results from the NADINA trial, neoadjuvant IO is the new standard of care in high-risk, resectable melanoma. It's important to highlight this because whereas other tumor types have more mature multidisciplinary care, for example, patients with breast cancer are reviewed by the whole team in every center, and every patient with lung cancer certainly benefits from multidisciplinary care conferences, that's not always the case with melanoma, given the relative frequency of cases compared to other tumor types.  Jason, would you say that we have now moved into an era where the integration of a multidisciplinary team and melanoma needs to be prioritized. And why is it important to have multidisciplinary team coordination from the onset of a patient's diagnosis? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, I think those are great questions, Ryan, and I think they really speak to the movement in our field and the great success that we've had integrating systemic therapy, particularly immunotherapy, into our treatment paradigms. And so, before answering your question directly, I would add even a little bit more color, which is to note that over the last few years, we've additionally seen the development of adjuvant therapy into stages of melanoma that, historically speaking, were considered low-risk, and medical oncologists might not even see the patient. To that, I'm speaking specifically about the stage 2B and 2C approvals for adjuvant anti-PD-1 with pembrolizumab or nivolumab. So this has been an emerging complication.  Classically, patients are diagnosed with melanoma by either their primary care doctor or a dermatologist. Again, classically, the next step was referral to a surgeon who had removed the primary lesion, with discussion around nodal evaluation as well. And that paradigm has really changed now, where I think integration of medical oncology input early on in the evaluation of the appropriate treatment plan for patients with melanoma is quite a pressing issue now, both because we have FDA approvals for therapeutics that can reduce risk of recurrence, and whether or not to pursue those makes a big difference to the patient for discussion early on.  And, moreover, the use of systemic therapies now, prior to surgery, of course, then, of course, requires the involvement of medical oncology. And just for an emphasis point on this, it's classically the case, for good reason, that surgeons complete their surgery and then feel confident to tell the patient, “Well, we got it all, and you're just in really good shape.” And while I understand where that's coming from, that often leaves aside the risk of recurrence. So you can have the most perfect surgery in the world and yet still be at very high risk of recurrence. And so it's commonly the case that we get patients referred to us after surgery who think they're just in totally good shape, quite surprised to find out that, in fact, they might have a 20% to 50% risk of recurrence. And so that's where this multidisciplinary integration for patient management really does make a big difference.  And so I would really emphasize the point you were making before, which is that we need multidisciplinary teams of med onc with derm, with surgery early on, to discuss “What are the treatment plans going to be for patients?” And that's true for neoadjuvant therapy, so, for palpable stage 3, where we might give checkpoint inhibitors or combinations before surgery. But it's true even in any reasonably high-risk melanoma, and I would argue in that state, anything more than stage 1 should be discussed as a group, because that communication strategy with the patient is so important from first principles, so that they have an expectation of what it's going to look like as they are followed out over time. And so we're emphasizing this point because I think it's mostly the case at most hospitals that there isn't a cutaneous oncology disease management meeting, and I think there needs to be.  It's important to point out that usually the surgeons that do this kind of surgery are actually either the GI surgeons who do colon cancer or the breast surgeons. And so, given that melanoma, it's not the most common kind of cancer, it could easily be integrated into the existing disease review groups to review these cases. And I think that's the point we really want to emphasize now. I think we're not going to belabor the data so much, but there are enormous advantages to either perioperative or adjuvant systemic therapy in melanoma. We're talking about risk reduction of more than 50%, 50-75% risk reduction. It's essential that we make sure we optimally offer that to patients. And, of course, patients will choose what they think is best for their care. But we need to message to them in a way that they can understand what the risks and benefits of those treatments are and then are well set up to understand what that treatment might look like and what their expectations would be out over time.  So I think this is a great art of medicine place to start. Instead of belaboring just the details of the trial to say, let's think about how we take care of our patients and how we communicate with them on first principles so that we can make the most out of the treatments that we do have available. Dr. Ryan Augustin: That's great, Jason. Very insightful points. Thank you.  So, shifting gears now, I'd also like to ask you a little bit about TIL therapy in melanoma. So our listeners will be aware that TIL is a promising new approach for treating advanced melanoma and leverages the power of a patient's cytotoxic T cells to attack cancer cells. While we've known about the potential of this therapy for some time, based on pioneering work at the NCI, this therapy is now FDA approved under the brand AMTAGVI (Lifileucel) from Iovance Biotherapeutics, making it the first cellular therapy to be approved for a solid tumor. Now, I know TIL therapy has been administered at your institution, Jason, for several years now, under trial status primarily for uveal melanoma using an in-house processing. But for many cancer centers, the only experience with cellular therapy has come under the domain of malignant hematology with CAR T administration. At our institution, for example, we have only recently started administering TIL therapy for melanoma, which has required a tremendous multidisciplinary effort among outpatient oncology, critical care, and an inpatient hematology service that has expertise in cytokine release syndrome.  Jason, where do you see TIL therapy fitting into the metastatic space? Which patients do you think are truly candidates for this intensive therapy? And what other practical or logistical considerations do you think we should keep in mind moving forward? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, thanks for raising this. I think the approval of lifileucel, which is the scientific name for the TIL product that's on the market now. It really is a shift, a landscape shift in oncology, and we're starting in melanoma again, as seems to be commonly the case in drug development. But it's really important to understand that this is a conceptually different kind of treatment, and therefore, it does require different considerations. Starting first with data and then actualization, maybe secondarily, when we see across the accelerated approval package that led to this being available, we quote patients that the response rate is likely in the range of 30%, maybe slightly lower than that, but a meaningful 25% to 30% response rate, and that most of those patients that do have response, it seems to be quite durable, meaning patients have been followed up to four years, and almost all the responders are still in response. And that's a really powerful thing to be able to tell a patient, particularly if the patient has already proceeded through multiple lines of prior standard therapy. So this is a very, very promising therapy.  Now, it is a complicated therapy as well. And so you highlighted that to do this, you have to have a tumor that's amenable for resection, a multidisciplinary team that has done a surgery to remove the tumor, sent it off to the company. They then need to process the TIL out of the tumor and then build them up into a personalized cell product, bring it back, you have to lympho-deplete the patient, re-introduce this TIL. So this is a process that, in the standard of care setting under best circumstances, takes roughly six weeks. So how to get that done in a timely fashion, I think, is evolving within our paradigms. But I think it is very important for people who practice in settings where this isn't already available to realize that referring patients for this should be a strong consideration. And thinking about how you could build your multidisciplinary team in a way to be able to facilitate this process, I think is going to be important, because this concept of TIL is relevant to other solid tumors as well. It's not approved yet in others, but we kind of assume eventually it probably will be. And so I think, thinking through this, how could it work, how do you refer patients is very important.  Now, coming back to the science, who should we treat with this? Well, of course, it's now an air quotes “standard of care option”, so really it ought to be available to anybody. I will note that currently, the capacity across the country to make these products is not really adequate to treat all the patients that we'd want. But who would we optimally want to treat, of course, would be people who have retained a good performance status after first line therapy, people who have tumors that are easily removable and who have not manifested a really rapid disease progression course, because then, of course, that six-week timeline probably doesn't make sense. The other really interesting data point out of the clinical trials so far is it has looked like the patients who got the least amount of benefit from anti-PD-1 immunotherapy, in other words, who progressed immediately without any kind of sustained response, those patients seem to have the best response to TILs, and that's actually sort of a great biomarker. So, this drug works the best for the population of patients where checkpoint inhibitors were not effective. And so as you think about who those patients might be in your practice, as you're listening, I think prioritizing it for primary progression on anti PD-1, again and giving it ahead thought about how would you get the patient through this process or referred to this process very quickly is really important because that lag time is a problem. Patients who have melanoma tend to progress reasonably quickly, and six weeks can be a long time in melanoma land. So, thinking ahead and building those processes is going to be important moving into the future Dr. Ryan Augustin: Definitely appreciate those practical considerations. Jason, thank you.  Moving on to our final topic, I was hoping to discuss the use of immune cell engagers in melanoma. So, similar to CAR T therapy, bispecific T-cell engagers, or BiTEs, as they're commonly known, are standard of care in refractory myeloma and lymphoma. But these antibodies engaging CD-3 on T cells and a tumor specific antigen on cancer cells are relatively new in the solid tumor space. Tarlatamab, which is a DLL-3 and CD-3 bispecific antibody, was recently approved in refractory small cell lung cancer, and, of course, tebentafusp, an HLA-directed CD-3 T cell engager was approved in uveal melanoma in 2022. Both T and NK cell engaging therapies are now offering hope in cancers where there has historically been little to offer. However, similar to our discussion with TIL therapy, bispecifics can lead to CRS and neurotoxicity, which require considerable logistical support and care coordination.  Jason, I was wondering if you could briefly discuss the current landscape of immune cell engagers in melanoma and how soon we may see these therapies enter the treatment paradigm for cutaneous disease. Dr. Jason Luke: I think it is an exciting, novel treatment strategy that I think we will only see emerge more and more. You alluded to the approval of tebentafusp in uveal melanoma, and those trials were, over the course of a decade, where those of us in solid tumor land learned how to manage cytokine release syndrome or the impact of these C3 bispecifics, in a way that we weren't used to. And what I'll caution people is that CRS, as this term, it sounds very scary because people have heard of patients that, of course, had difficult outcomes and hematological malignancies, but it's a spectrum of side effects. And so, when we think about tebentafusp, which is the approved molecule, really what we see is a lot of rash because GP100, the other tumor antigen target, is in the skin. So, patients get a rash, and then people do get fevers, but it's pretty rare to get more than that. So really what you have to have is the capacity to monitor patients for 12 hours, but it's really not more scary than that. So it really just requires treating a few people to kind of get used to these kinds of symptoms, because they're not the full-on ICU level CRS that we see with, say, CAR T-cells.  But where is the field going? Well, there's a second CD3 bispecific called brenetafusp that targets the molecule PRAME, that's in a phase 3 clinical trial now for frontline cutaneous melanoma. And tebentafusp is also being evaluated in cutaneous melanoma for refractory disease. So, it's very possible that these could be very commonly used for cutaneous melanoma, moving into, say, a two-to-four-year time horizon. And so therefore, getting used to what are these side effects, how do you manage them in an ambulatory practice for solid tumor, etc., is going to be something everyone's going to have to learn how to deal with, but I don't think it should be something that people should be afraid of.  One thing that we've seen with these molecules so far is that their kinetics of treatment effect do look slightly different than what we see with more classic oncology therapies. These drugs have a long-term benefit but doesn't always manifest as disease regression. So, we commonly see patients will have stable disease, meaning their tumor stops growing, but we don't see that it shrank a lot, but that can turn into a very meaningful long-term benefit. So that's something that we're also, as a community, going to have to get used to. It may not be the case we see tumors shrink dramatically upfront, but rather we can actually follow people with good quality- of-life over a longer period of time.  Where is the field going? You mentioned tarlatamab in small cell lung cancer, and I think we're only going to see more of these as appropriate tumor antigens are identified in different tumors. And then the other piece is these CD3 engagers generally rely upon some kind of engagement with a T cell, whether CD3 engagers, and so they can be TCR or T-cell receptor-based therapies, although they can be also SCFV-based. But that then requires new biomarkers, because TCR therapy requires HLA restriction. So, understanding that now we're going to need to profile patients based on their germline in addition to the genomics of the tumor. And those two things are separate. But I would argue at this point, basically everybody with cutaneous melanoma should be being profiled for HLA-A(*)0201, which is the major T-cell receptor HLA haplotype that we would be looking for, because whether or not you can get access immediately to tebentafusp, but therefore clinical trials will become more and more important.  Finally, in that T-cell receptor vein, there are also T cell receptor-transduced T cells, which are also becoming of relevance in the oncology community and people listening will be aware in synovial sarcoma of the first approval for a TCR-transduced T cell with afamitresgene autoleucel. And in melanoma, we similarly have TCR-transduced T cells that are coming forward in clinical trials into phase 3, the IMA203 PRAME-directed molecule particularly. And leveraging our prior conversation about TILs, we're going to have more and more cellular based therapies coming forward, which is going to make it important to understand what are the biomarkers that go with those, what are the side effect profiles of these, and how do you build your practice in a way that you can optimally get your patients access to all of these different treatments, because it will become more logistically complicated, kind of as more of these therapies come online over the next, like we said, two to four years kind of time horizon. So, it's very exciting, but there is more to do, both logistically and scientifically. Dr. Ryan Augustin: That's excellent. Thanks, Jason, and thank you so much for sharing your great insight with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Jason Luke: Thanks so much for the opportunity. Dr. Ryan Augustin: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You will find links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode, and you can follow Dr. Luke on X, formerly known as Twitter, @jasonlukemd. And you can find me, @RyanAugustinMD. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.   Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Follow today's speakers: @ryanaugustinmd Dr. Jason Luke @jasonlukemd   Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on Twitter ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn   Disclosures: Dr. Ryan Augustin: No relationships to disclose Dr. Jason Luke: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Actym Therapeutics, Mavu Pharmaceutical, Pyxis, Alphamab Oncology, Tempest Therapeutics, Kanaph Therapeutics, Onc.AI, Arch Oncology, Stipe, NeoTX Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, EMD Serono, Novartis, 7 Hills Pharma, Janssen, Reflexion Medical, Tempest Therapeutics, Alphamab Oncology, Spring Bank, Abbvie, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Incyte, Mersana, Partner Therapeutics, Synlogic, Eisai, Werewolf, Ribon Therapeutics, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Regeneron, Rubius, Tesaro, Xilio, Xencor, Alnylam, Crown Bioscience, Flame Biosciences, Genentech, Kadmon, KSQ Therapeutics, Immunocore, Inzen, Pfizer, Silicon Therapeutics, TRex Bio, Bright Peak, Onc.AI, STipe, Codiak Biosciences, Day One Therapeutics, Endeavor, Gilead Sciences, Hotspot Therapeutics, SERVIER, STINGthera, Synthekine Research Funding (Inst.): Merck , Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie, Macrogenics, Xencor, Array BioPharma, Agios, Astellas Pharma , EMD Serono, Immatics, Kadmon, Moderna Therapeutics, Nektar, Spring bank, Trishula, KAHR Medical, Fstar, Genmab, Ikena Oncology, Numab, Replimmune, Rubius Therapeutics, Synlogic, Takeda, Tizona Therapeutics, Inc., BioNTech AG, Scholar Rock, Next Cure Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Serial #15/612,657 (Cancer Immunotherapy), and Serial #PCT/US18/36052 (Microbiome Biomarkers for Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Responsiveness: Diagnostic, Prognostic and Therapeutic Uses Thereof) Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Array BioPharma, EMD Serono, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Reflexion Medical, Mersana, Pyxis, Xilio

Dr. Dionisia Quiroga discusses emerging approaches to personalizing locoregional treatment for breast cancer with Drs. Walter Paul Weber and Charlote Coles, who share insights on tailoring axillary surgery, escalating lymphatic surgery, and implementing hypofractionated radiotherapy. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: Hello, I'm Dr. Dionisia Quiroga, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm a breast medical oncologist and assistant professor in the Division of Medical Oncology at the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center. On today's episode, we'll be discussing emerging approaches to personalize locoregional treatment for patients with breast cancer, including many of the latest updates on axillary surgical staging, lymphatic surgery, and evidence-based radiotherapy in the treatment of breast cancer. We're very fortunate to have joining me today for this discussion Dr. Walter Paul Weber, a professor and head at the Division of Breast Surgery at the University Hospital Basel in Switzerland, and Dr. Charlotte Coles, a professor of cancer clinical oncology and the deputy head of the Department of Oncology at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Weber and Dr. Coles, it's very wonderful to have you on the podcast and thank you so much for being here. Dr. Walter Paul Weber: Thank you very much for having us. Dr. Charlotte Coles: Thank you. Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: Now, for many decades prior, axillary lymph node dissection has very much been our standard of care. But recently, axillary surgeries have been able to be gradually deescalated to spare some of our patients from relative and relevant long-term morbidity. There are still some indications in which axillary lymph node dissection still remain. And therefore, we still see breast cancer-related lymphedema, a well-known sequela of the axillary surgery to continue to be prevalent. And I think it's important also to acknowledge that today there's about an estimated 1.5 million cancer survivors who deal with breast cancer-related lymphedema. Now, Dr. Weber, at the recent ASCO Annual Meeting, you and your co-presenters discussed tailoring axillary surgery, escalating lymphatic surgery and implementing evidence-based hypofractionated radiotherapy to really personalize locoregional treatment for people who've been diagnosed with breast cancer. And in addition to that, you and Dr. Coles have also published this work in the 2024 ASCO Educational Book. Can you tell us about some of the recent advances in axillary surgery and what are really the current indications for axillary dissection? Dr. Walter Paul Weber: Yes, I'm happy to do so. So as you've said, we've known for a while that we can omit axillary dissection in patients with clinically known negative breast cancer and negative sentinel nodes. We've known for about 10-15 years that we can omit axillary dissection in patients with one or two positive sentinel nodes in many patients. But what we've learned recently is that we can omit axillary dissection also in patients with one or two positive sentinel nodes who have larger primary tumors who undergo mastectomy or who have extranodal extension. This is a landmark trial that was published just a few months ago, the SENOMAC trial that established this. The remaining indications for axillary dissection are situations where you expect a heavy tumor load in the axilla. For example, when you have more than two positive sentinel nodes or you have a patient with clinically node-positive breast cancer who undergoes upfront surgery and has palpable disease or significant disease on imaging. Patients with locally advanced breast cancer, who are considered by some to be not eligible for nodal downstaging, such as patients with CN2, CN3 disease or CT4 breast cancer. And then the big group of patients who have residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the nodes, standard of care is still axillary dissection. But we now have some real-world evidence that it's safe for selected patients with low volume nodal disease left in the nodes, mostly isolated tumor cells, to not undergo axillary dissection. So these are the remaining indications today. Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: Can you speak to situations where maybe even sentinel lymph node biopsies might be omitted? I know you spoke a little bit about the use of imaging in your work. Dr. Walter Paul Weber: Yes, this is correct. So, we started about maybe 7 or 8 years ago to omit sentinel lymph node biopsy in older patients above 70 years of age who have luminal disease, according to recommendations from the Choosing Wisely initiative. And now indeed there are several ongoing randomized trials that investigate if axillary imaging can replace surgical staging of the axilla. And the first of these trials was published recently, the SOUND trial with almost 1,500 patients, who underwent breast conserving surgery and had small tumors and all had a negative ultrasound of the axilla. And then they were randomized into a sentinel lymph node biopsy versus no axillary surgery. And that trial showed non-inferiority of the omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy in these patients. Now, it's a bit early to roll out the Choosing Wisely recommendation to all patients who have a negative ultrasound. The SOUND trial showed that about 14% had a false-negative ultrasound. So, in the control arm, they actually did have a positive sentinel node. And in patients where that one missed sentinel node makes a big difference in terms of systemic therapy, most experts would still recommend sentinel biopsy, and these are patients mainly with HER2-positive or triple-negative breast cancer or premenopausal patients or those who have G3 biology. Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: I think you bring up a very important point. Coming from the side of a breast medical oncologist, we're also very interested to see what these studies show because many of our practices are based on what we find out from our lymph node biopsies. So, I think a lot of interesting prospective studies to look at in the future. Dr. Walter Paul Weber: Absolutely. Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: One other topic we wanted to discuss was local regional management of stage four disease and particularly oligometastatic disease. And this is not a new topic of interest. We've been speaking about this for a long time in breast cancer management, but can you address some of the axillary management strategies that you currently use for stage 4 disease? Dr. Walter Paul Weber: Yes, it depends on your intention. If your intention is to cure the patient, then you would apply all the locoregional standards that apply in the curative setting, which means lymph node biopsy with or without axillary dissection. Now in a palliative situation, it's individualized. Very often you don't touch the axilla and sometimes you open it and just remove palpable disease, trying to minimize morbidity. The question of which intent you should follow is controversial; three out of the four randomized trials did not show a benefit for locoregional surgery in patients with de novo stage 4 disease. However, experts seem to disagree. The last St. Gallen consensus recommendation was in favor of the curative intent in such a patient with oligometastatic disease; 85% favored the curative intent. So there's a bit of discrepancy there, but everybody would agree, and this is what has been done in all of these trials, that if you try to cure the patient, then you should apply the curative standards of sentinel and axillary dissection that you use also in early-stage breast cancer. Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: Thank you. Now, moving on from surgical axillary management and more into lymphedema prevention and treatment. Can you speak to some of the promising advances that have happened in this field? Dr. Walter Paul Weber: Yes, so the best way to prevent lymphedema still is not to perform axillary dissection, which is the number 1 risk factor, which is all the axillary surgery de-escalation research that we've just discussed is all about. Prevention of lymphedema is one major aim of this. Now, once you indicate axillary dissection and you expect the patient to be at high risk – for example, if there are other risk factors such as obesity or neoadjuvant chemotherapy or extended regional nodal radiotherapy, then indeed there are emerging techniques that really seem to work. There is some evidence supporting it, which is categorizable as immediate lymphatic repair basically or bypass. And that is usually in a patient who undergoes axillary dissection, and also undergoes axillary reverse mapping. That allows the identification of the lymph nodes that are probably most relevant to the drainage of the lymphatic fluid from the arm. And then you can try to spare these. But if you decide, and this is effective, there is a consistent body of evidence, not phase 3 trials, but pretty consistent evidence that axillary reverse mapping works just by sparing the identified nodes. But if you decide that you have to remove these nodes as part of the radical concept of axillary dissection, then immediate lymphatic repair is also increasingly being done and is also supported by consistent evidence, even some single center randomized trials, low volume, but all consistently showing quite a striking benefit of this immediate lymphatic repair technique. There are different ways you can do it. You can either use it the microscope, and it's being done by the plastic surgeons, but it's also a simplified technique described that can be used by specialized general and breast surgeons. Both techniques seem to really work based on what we know from the studies, but also based on our common sense. Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: You talked about the procedures that can be offered to patients at time of breast surgery. And unfortunately, many of our patients maybe did not have the availability of those techniques when they undergo their initial breast cancer treatment. Once lymphedema is developed in a limb following breast cancer diagnosis, can you speak to other interventions that can be done to potentially help mitigate lymphedema? Dr. Walter Paul Weber: Right, so for patients who no longer benefit from or wish to further undergo conservative treatment of lymphedema, there are emerging procedures that are now out of my personal comfort zone because they're being performed by plastic surgeons; they use the microscope. There are two groups, the lymphovenous anastomosis and then the real vascular lymph node transfer as a free flap. And both of these procedures (there are no randomized trials yet published), but some really good ones are on the way and currently recruiting based on the evidence we have, which is over 20 observational studies all consistently again showing a benefit in terms of what you can measure in terms of centimeters or with a bioimpedance spectroscopy, or also when you ask the patients, you see quite some dramatic improvements by both of these techniques. And it's increasingly being done. Personally, I strongly believe that it works based on everything we know and understand from lymphedema development, but also prevention and treatment. So I am quite sure that in 5-10 years, we will see much more surgical treatment of patients with lymphedema by highly specialized plastic surgeons. Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: That's my hope as well. Now, another important component of local regional treatment we know is of course radiotherapy. And there have been many incredible advances in breast radiotherapy over the past decades, which has really improved cancer control and decreased side effects in our patients. Dr. Coles, you've led practice changing radiotherapy trials in the past and your research has really influenced international hypofractionation policy. Can you expand upon the emergence of hypofractionated radiation for breast cancer and the effects that it can have on our patient care? Dr. Charlotte Coles: Yes, so thank you very much, Dr. Quiroga. So I think the first thing to say is that radiotherapy hypofractionation isn't a new concept. And in fact, the breast radiotherapy hypofractionation trial started around three decades ago. And the rationale for this was the hypothesis that breast cancer is as sensitive to fraction, which is the treatments that we give, we split it into fractions, is sensitive as late responding tissue. So what does this mean? It means that the small traditional 2 Gy fraction spare tumor and normal tissues equally, so there's no advantage. So therefore, fewer fractions with a larger dose per fraction are worth testing. The problem is there's a concern that hypofractionation might increase the risk of side effects, and that includes the really important one we've been talking about, lymphedema. But we can reduce this risk by reducing the total radiotherapy dose over the whole course. But the question was by how much. So that's why randomized trials were needed. And there's been really high-quality trials with robust radiotherapy quality assurance, and they've been designed in partnership with patients. So just a very quick run through: A landmark trial was the UK START B trial. And this was a pragmatic design that compared 50 Gy in 25 fractions, which was commonly used in the south of the country with 40 Gy in 15 fractions, which was used at that time in the north [of the UK]. And this recruitment was around in the late 1990s and early 2000s. What we knew was that the three-week regimen was actually radiobiologically lower dose. And therefore the results that we got, it wasn't surprising that the 40 Gy was actually gentler on the normal tissue. So that's an advantage for patients. But what was surprising was it wasn't gentler on the tumor and non-inferiority was proven. So this suggests that overall treatment time is important for local control. So this fits with hypofractionation. Way back in 2009, 40 Gy in 15 fractions to both the breast and regional nodes became standard of care in the UK. But five-week nodal and actually breast as well remained standard of care in many countries for many years after that, a little bit to do with the fact that there were few patients treated in the START trial in terms of treating the node. So more recently we've had more randomized trials, particularly for nodal radiotherapy. And this includes the recently reported Danish SKAGEN 1 trial and also the French HypoG-01 trial, which was actually presented at ESMO in Barcelona a couple of weeks ago. So we've now got data for over 5,800 participants in really high-quality randomized trials testing three weeks and five weeks of nodal radiotherapy. And there's no statistically significant difference in late normal tissues for any of these, including lymphedema. So certainly, in my opinion and reflecting in many of the European guidelines, five-week radiotherapy is no longer indicated and three-week nodal radiotherapy is the international standard of care. So, in conclusion, the question is can we hypofractionate even further? So the UK FAST-Forward trial tested three weeks with two different dose levels of one week for the whole breast. Primary endpoint was ipsilateral breast tumor response. More than 4,000 patients participated and this was reported in 2020 with a median follow -up of six years and this was very timely because this is a time of COVID and the results showed non-inferiority for local control with similar late normal tissue side effects and we've also had other results from the UK IMPORT HIGH trial which shows that we can safely deliver a small, highly targeted team of boost simultaneously with the whole breast in all in three weeks. Finally, these two landmark trials have come together for the design of the UK FAST-Forward Boost Study led by my colleague Dr. Anna Kirby. And this is going to test three-week simultaneous integrated boost with two levels of one-week simultaneous integrated boost. And it's also going to test the safety of 5 fraction nodal radiotherapy, including the internal mammary node. Primary endpoint is ipsilateral breast tumor response, multiple normal tissue endpoints, including patient-reported outcomes of course, and the target recall is large with 4,800 participants. So, in summary, I would say that hypofractionation is efficacious, has similarly reduced toxicity. Importantly, it reduces patient burden and that's incredibly important because it means that people can get back on with their life quicker. It reduces health system costs, and also increases equity of access. So we really do need to continue to recruit and design high quality trials in this area. Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: Thank you, Dr. Coles. I think you highlight that there really aren't any downsides to looking into hypofractionated radiotherapy at this point. So excited to see what those future trials yield. And I want to thank you so much, Dr. Weber and Dr. Coles for sharing your valuable insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Walter Paul Weber: Thank you very much. Dr. Charlotte Coles: Thank you. Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. Our listeners will find a link to our guests' article from the ASCO Educational Book in the transcript of this episode, as well as a link to their presentation from the most recent ASCO Annual Meeting. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcast. Disclaimer:   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  Find out more about today's speakers:   Dr. Dionisia Quiroga @quirogad Dr. Walter Paul Weber Dr. Charlotte Coles Follow ASCO on social media:     @ASCO on Twitter    ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn    Disclosures: Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: No relationships to disclose Dr. Walter Weber: Honoraria: MSD Dr. Charlotte Coles: No relationships to disclose

Dr. Merry Jennifer Markham and ASCO CMO Dr. Julie Gralow discuss the shortage of IV fluids and other challenges that have emerged from Hurricane Helene as high-risk areas brace for impact from another storm, Hurricane Milton. In a conversation with Dr. John Sweetenham, they highlight resources for oncologists and patients and stress the importance of crisis preparedness at cancer centers. TRANSCRIPT Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Hurricane Helene made landfall on September 26th in Florida and raged over parts of Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. The disaster has claimed over 230 lives. Many people are still missing, and many thousands are homeless. The hurricane has exacerbated the nation's IV fluid shortage, and some health care facilities have begun implementing conservation strategies. Meanwhile, Hurricane Milton, another powerful hurricane, is expected to wreak havoc as Florida braces for back-to-back hurricanes in parts of the state. On today's episode, we'll be discussing the impact of these events on cancer care, including the shortage of IV fluids. Joining me for this discussion is Dr. Merry Jennifer Markham, a professor and research lead for the University of Florida Health Cancer Center's Gynecologic Cancer Disease Site Group. I'm also delighted to welcome Dr. Julie Gralow, the chief medical officer at ASCO. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Merry Jennifer and Julie, many thanks for joining us for the podcast today. Dr. Julie Gralow: Thanks for having us, John. Dr. Merry Jennifer Markham: Yes, thank you. Dr. John Sweetenham: Merry Jennifer, can you tell us your exact location today and how your patients and institution have been impacted by Hurricane Helene so far? Dr. Merry Jennifer Markham: I am in the north-central part of Florida. I'm in Gainesville, Florida, which is the home of the University of Florida, where I practice medicine. And we are physically about two hours north of Tampa, two hours north of Orlando, and about an hour and a half southwest of Jacksonville. So right in the middle. And we are currently in the track for the next storm. Helene was a really a devastating storm and what our area felt was primarily what we tend to get in most storms here in the center part of the state, which is a lot of rain, a high risk for tornadoes and a lot of power outages. And one of the challenges that my center in particular faces, and some of the local cancer centers and cancer care providers around in our region, is our patients live in a very rural population. So for those patients who are not in downtown Tampa, downtown Orlando, for example, the rest of the state, especially in the northern part, tends to be quite rural. And so many of our patients had loss of power and a lot also in those regions are on well water. And so when the power goes out, it's not just a matter of losing air conditioning and losing access to Wi-Fi, but it's also losing access to fresh, clean water. Dr. John Sweetenham: Wow, it sounds very challenging. And of course, there are growing concerns at the moment about the IV fluid shortage that's being caused by Hurricane Helene and some hospitals have already begun conserving IV fluid supplies. Can you tell us a little bit about your experience with IV fluid shortages so far and whether you are anticipating other medical supplies to be affected by these shortages in the days or weeks ahead? Dr. Merry Jennifer Markham: Well, the IV fluid shortage has definitely impacted us. I happened to be on service last week and this week, and, working in the inpatient setting right now on our oncology inpatient service, we are having to conserve all IV fluid, and the entire hospital has been directed to find workarounds. And it's not always easy to find workarounds. It has definitely impacted our ability to safely discharge patients and to sometimes adequately give people the hydration, for example, that they need. A lot of the cancer therapies, we also use intravenous fluids to pre-hydrate or post-hydrate, and it's a challenge when we also need to conserve those IV fluids for other critical needs in the hospital setting. And for me, the shortage is really being felt in that inpatient setting right now. I think that other centers are still going through. And what we learned from the pandemic is that when there is a shortage, and it's not just actually the pandemic that we learned this from, but from any of the supply chain issues that we've had is then centers start buying it up, right? And so there's a bit of a panic in the healthcare field where if we're short on IV fluids, then well, now everybody is buying up the remaining IV fluids. And I think that does impact, unfortunately, everyone in a negative way. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, I was reading some news reports earlier today actually about stockpiling and the efforts that some of the companies are going to control their outward going supplies to hopefully prevent some of that stockpiling. As if life for you and your patients wasn't difficult enough, you now have the prospect of another major storm, Hurricane Milton, which is headed your way and predicted to be among the most destructive hurricanes ever on record in central Florida. What are your major concerns in the days ahead and for what this might mean for the longer-term impact on cancer care? Dr. Merry Jennifer Markham: It's concerning. We are definitely in the path and the hospital is currently in sort of crisis preparedness mode. My concerns are always for the patients and for the teams caring for them, especially in my current work in the inpatient setting, these last two weeks. Our patients, because they come from such rural areas, are going to lose power. We will probably lose power, but we have generators at the hospital system, so we're a bit protected. But in many of these areas around us, there will be high winds, there will be flooding for those along the coast, and just the access to a clean, safe living environment is going be in jeopardy during and after the storm. What concerns me about our patients in particular with cancer are the ones who are undergoing treatments and who may have complications and may not be able to reach the help that they need during the storm or in the days following. I have patients that I have been caring for in the last week who still haven't recuperated, still haven't recovered their power from Helene. And so this is just adding insult to injury. I think that the impact on medical supplies is still to be seen. The challenge is always when a storm wipes out the major manufacturer of a particular product, I think we'll probably continue to have the IV fluid shortages. And I think it's just going to be a matter of preparing for a worst-case scenario but being prepared. Dr. John Sweetenham: Absolutely, yes. I think you've already alluded to the fact that as each of these successive disasters affect the country, we sort of learn a little bit more each time. And ASCO has provided resources on its website for disaster assistance. We'll share a link in the transcript of this episode to connect providers and patients to the Hurricane Helene-specific resources, government agencies, and also to patient and caregiver groups. Julie, as ASCO's chief medical officer, you've been speaking to stakeholders across the oncology community, as well as many groups that are responding to the crisis. What's your message to ASCO members and patients and caregivers today? Dr. Julie Gralow: Our main message at ASCO to our members, our immediate outreach was, ‘We're thinking of you, we're here for you, let us know how we can help you.' As you've already said, we've learned from past natural disasters. We had Katrina way back when, specifically for the IV drug shortages. We had a shortage back in 2014 due to a problem in Norway, but in 2017 we had another hurricane, Maria, which impacted Puerto Rico and majorly impacted IV fluids. So we have knowledge that we've gained, we as the whole medical community have gained on how to adapt and where we can hydrate orally or, you know, give electrolytes and where we can reserve things. I think one of our main messages at ASCO is that while our members are those who treat patients with cancer, we use IV fluid everywhere in the hospital, the operating room, the emergency room, the ICUs. We are all in this together, and so, while we have some specific things related to oncology where we can probably save fluid and conserve, etc., we need to work as a whole team, a whole body to protect each other. So, if you're developing an incident management team at your institution or whatever, it needs to be multidisciplinary. We all need to be protecting each other's patients as well. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely. Just briefly on the subject of IV fluids, do you think it will be necessary to mitigate the IV fluid issue by bringing IV fluids in from other countries? Dr. Julie Gralow: I think the full impact, how long this is going to be, how much we can ramp up domestically, is really yet to be seen. all looking at this. So Baxter, which supplies about 60% of hospital IV fluids and peritoneal dialysis solutions, it was flooded essentially at their big plant in North Carolina. They have several other plants in the US and some internationally too. So the question will be, did those other plants also make IV fluids? Can they be ramped up? There are another at least two companies in the U.S. that make IV fluid. What will be their ability to ramp up? we already do. Baxter says they've already; I think Merry Jennifer alluded to this, they've already instituted a mitigation strategy where they're placing products on a protective allocation. So they are really trying to protect against stockpiling, et cetera. The FDA has come out and said it will consider reviewing potential temporary imports. It also is looking at expediting reviews once the manufacturing lines are up and going again, it will expedite those as well. And they're looking at alternative providers. IV drugs are officially on the FDA's drug shortages list, and that allows certain flexibilities, I am told, in terms of, for example, being able to make sterile IV fluids at a local site if it's on the FDA drug shortage list. And there are some other things that go along with it. It's really hard to find on the FDA drug shortage site. You have to use the right keyword. You have to look it up under sodium chloride for injection. You can't look up saline on it. But it is now there. I think it just got placed in the last 24 hours or so. And so that does allow some additional flexibilities. Dr. John Sweetenham: Okay, great. Thank you. So a question for both of you. A couple of years ago, we covered the consequences of Hurricane Ian on this podcast. And Helene and Milton will presumably not be the last storms which are going to disrupt cancer care and undoubtedly cause a great deal of hardship to many people, both our patients and our caregivers, those who are giving care. Climate change probably predicts that this is going to be an ongoing event. You know, these events have undoubtedly tested the disaster preparedness plans of cancer centers in the region. I wonder how you would assess the readiness of cancer centers to respond to these big disasters, which are undoubtedly in our future, and what areas of care do you think would need more attention? Merry Jennifer, maybe I'll start with you for that question. Dr. Merry Jennifer Markham: I think cancer centers, working within their health system, really should have a disaster preparedness plan in place. Here in Florida, I am very used to the preparedness plans that my system has developed really for every hurricane season. And because hurricane season is from June to the end of November, we are fully aware of this plan and can start taking action. And a lot of that deals with when do we close particular clinics? What areas do we need to prioritize? How do we make sure we've got proper staffing? I think that is the type of thing that cancer centers should have really in a written protocol – here's what we do when this news is coming out of the weather center or something along those lines. One of the challenges that we face, and I think probably this is, I guess I'm going to speak for all of the Southeast who is in the, you know, a hurricane, you know, risk area is disaster fatigue. And I think that is a problem. I don't know if it's unrecognized. I fully recognize it because I feel it. think earlier when we were talking, you mentioned Hurricane Ian and I don't even remember, Ian, because we have so many of these hurricanes. Every year there's a new one or multiple, and they all seem to bring the same kind of disasters. Usually on a local scale; I think what we've seen with Helene has just been so massive across multiple states. But the fatigue, that disaster fatigue, I think can lead people to become a little lax. And there is a risk. If we think of all of us as caregivers for all of our patients and for the physicians and teams practicing, it's easy to become numb and tired and worn out of preparing for these disasters. So, I think it's very important that this stays top of mind and that centers are preparing and also cognizant of the fact that fatigue is also a real potential issue. Dr. John Sweetenham: Right, thanks. Julie. Dr. Julie Gralow: We learn from each event and the events have come closer and closer, at least the hurricanes have. I totally agree with Merry Jennifer that we can't have disaster fatigue. Each one does have its unique component. For example, Helene, while we could see the path and it didn't stray that far from its path, did we really expect that this region, this Appalachian region would be the one most impacted? They're nowhere near a coast, you know, it was a bunch of flooding and dams breaking, so each one is different. From ASCO's perspective, we've learned and we've developed both a domestic crisis response team and plan, as well as an international one. And it's, besides hurricanes and major storms, you know, we've had fires and earthquakes and for our international crisis response team, we've been dealing with conflict and getting cancer care delivery in regions of conflict. So by having a team formed, by learning from each event, and then quickly communicating with members when we can get ahold of them on the ground as to what the real situation is and how we can help, I think we've gotten stronger over the years. It's still, with each one, it's horrible for the people on the ground and our job really is to best support our members and their patients as they're trying to get their lives back together. Dr. John Sweetenham: Thank you. So, I think that winds up most of the issues we wanted to cover today. And I wanted to thank you both Dr. Markham and Dr. Gralow for being on the podcast today and sharing your insights on what is, of course, an extremely challenging situation. I should remind listeners that they will find links to disaster resources for providers and patients on the ASCO website at asco.org. You can also follow Dr. Markham on X. Her tag is at @DrMarkham, where she has been sharing key information and resources. And Dr. Julie Gralow will continue to share resources on X. You can find her @jrgralow. We want to wish you, Merry Jennifer, and our many colleagues in the affected regions, all the best during what we know are very challenging times. Dr. Merry Jennifer Markham: Thank you. And thanks to you, Dr. Gralow, for sharing your insights and thoughts with us today as well. Dr. Julie Gralow: Thanks for having us, John. Dr. John Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and inform. It is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. The guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements do not necessarily reflect the opinions of ASCO. Mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  Find out more about today's guests: Dr. Merry Jennifer Markham @DrMarkham Dr. Julie Gralow @jrgralow Follow ASCO on social media:  @ASCO on Twitter ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn Disclosures: Dr. John Sweetenham No relationships to disclose Dr. Merry Jennifer Markham: Stock and Other Ownership Interests (Immediate Family Member): Pfizer Research Funding (Inst.): AstraZeneca, Merck Dr. Julie Gralow: No relationships to disclose

Dr. Fumiko Chino and Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon share highlights from the 2024 ASCO Quality Care Symposium, including patient perspectives and compelling research on topics like equity, supportive care, survivorship, and technology and innovation. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Fumiko Chino: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Fumiko Chino, an assistant professor in radiation oncology at the MD Anderson Cancer Center. On today's episode, we'll be highlighting key research and compelling perspectives that were featured at the 2024 ASCO Quality Care Symposium. I was delighted to serve as the chair-elect of this meeting's program committee, and I'm overjoyed to welcome its chair, Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon, to the podcast today. He is the chief scientist at the Baptist Memorial Health Care Corporation and the director of the Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Program at the Baptist Cancer Center in Memphis, Tennessee. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode, and we've already agreed to go by our first names for this podcast today. Ray, it's so great to speak with you today. Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Thank you, Dr. Chino, and thank you for letting me call you by your first name. Dr. Fumiko Chino: I think both of our names are complicated enough and so I appreciate the level of familiarity that we've had with each other during the planning process for this fantastic meeting. Now, the Quality Care Symposium featured some really compelling research on very timely topics that address a wide range of issues in cancer care, including quality, safety, equity, supportive care, survivorship, and technology and innovation. Wow, what a lot to cover. Ray, do you mind sharing with me some of the key sessions that really stood out for you? Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Yes, Fumiko, this was such a great conference. Our tagline this year was ‘Driving Solutions, Implementing Change.' We had more than 700 attendees in person and virtually. The Symposium featured many fantastic speakers, oral abstracts, posters, and we had networking opportunities for junior colleagues to interact with leaders in the space. We had conversations that will surely inspire future collaborations to improve quality cancer care. We had patients, advocates. I was inspired by the patient perspectives that were presented, learned a lot. And I really felt like this enhanced our understanding of some of the key issues that we see in our clinics. I was honored to be able to introduce my dear friend, Dr. Ethan Basch from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, who received the Joseph Simone Quality Care Award this year. Dr. Basch gave a talk titled, “On the Verge of a Golden Age in Quality Cancer Care.” In his talk, which received a standing ovation, Dr. Basch tracked his personal development from fellowship training at Memorial Sloan Kettering through a junior faculty position at the same institution under the mentorship of Dr. Deborah Schrag, and ultimately to his current position as chair of oncology at the University of North Carolina and as physician-in-chief at the North Carolina Cancer Hospital. In parallel, with the evolution of the patient-reported outcomes movement that he has been right at the heart of, and also the evolution of cancer care delivery research into its current position of prominence in oncology. That was a spectacular talk, and it rightly received a standing ovation. We also had presentations and panel discussions that addressed patient navigation and cancer care moving from theory to practice, which provided wonderful, diverse perspectives on the evidence-based approaches to patient navigation and cancer care. And a wonderful session on the complexities of the pharmaceutical supply chain and what everyone in oncology should know that looks at the current challenges in the pharmaceutical supply chain. Leveraging technology to support patient-centered multidisciplinary care [was also covered], and we talked about health-related social needs and the impact of diversity, equity and inclusion on the oncology workforce. Patient care perspectives were just incredible. So, Fumiko, as an equity researcher, I really want to hear your key takeaways from some of these discussions. Dr. Fumiko Chino: I have to say, I was so impressed with not just the science that was presented, but also the passion from some of our educational speakers who are really speaking from their expertise and their commitment to try to continue to advance equity in the field of cancer care. And as someone who is still a relatively junior researcher, I feel that the work that I've done over the last decade has really been built on the shoulders of these giants. Just harkening back to you had mentioned that Dr. Basch essentially gave an overview of his career and as a young health services researcher, I've been really impressed about how generous the leaders in the field have been with their time not only to discuss their research at this conference, but also to talk to trainees and fellows and junior researchers and really share the wealth of their knowledge. In terms of equity research presented at the conference though, I was really struck by the overview we were able to provide about the best care to provide to LGBTQ patients. Dr. Mandy Pratt-Chapman actually gave a really lovely overview that was always centered in the patient. It really taught me a lot about what the best practice is to not just collect SOGI data to improve research, but also that there's billing codes that can actually help decrease the chance that a patient may be misbilled based on anatomical misunderstanding of their gender identity. I was very impressed about the capacity for some of our researchers to really think outside of the classic box for DEI research. So not just race as a social construct, ethnicity, but also health literacy barriers. There was a fantastic analysis looking at a randomized control trial (Abstract 385) that actually showed that patients with low health literacy actually got the most benefit from a digital intervention that involved text reminders to increase adherence. And the flip side of health literacy is that we know that the specific interventions that we do really need to be explicitly designed for the populations that they will be implemented on. Dr. LoConte actually had the results from her intervention looking at a radon mitigation indigenous communities (Abstract 44). And I was so impressed about her commitment to the process of listening to the communities and what their needs were, what their concerns were, and then implementing this community led intervention that helped mitigate the radon risk from many households where the actual radon levels were surprisingly high, beyond what they were that what they were anticipating. And so, it's all of these manifestations of how do we actually improve research, how do we advance the field and further the conversation in an era when it seems like DEI is really under attack. Well, I know you've long been an advocate for equity for lung cancer. And I know that you were actually involved in one of the amazing abstracts being presented that was essentially a decade- long QI (quality improvement) project to try to improve standards of care for lung cancer in a high-risk community in the Mississippi Delta (Abstract 278). And it actually showed over time that this surgical pathology intervention actually was able to improve overall survival for lung cancer. I know that this is part of the work that you've been doing for years. Can you talk a little bit about what was presented within the Symposium specifically for lung cancer, including your study? Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Yes, Fumiko. The member of my team, Olawale Akinbobola, who has an MPH that he actually acquired within my research team I'm proud to say, had the wonderful opportunity to present this work on implementing surgical quality improvement, and in parallel, pathology quality improvement in a well-defined population involving 14 hospitals in seven health care systems across five contiguous hospital referral regions in Mississippi, Arkansas, and Tennessee, at the heart of the Mississippi Delta region. So Olawale showed that over the course of four consecutive 5-year time spans, the quality of surgery has improved from a time when using current objective benchmarks of surgical quality, anywhere from 0-5% of resections met these current standards. So basically, applying today's standards, but retrospectively, to where, as the interventions took hold, we now got to a point where about 67% of the sections in this population now attain surgical quality. And we saw in sequential lockstep with that, that the hazard of death among these patients has significantly decreased. All the way, I think using the first 5 years as the reference, the hazard reduced about 64%. Really amazing to see. But you know, there were other fascinating abstracts. There was a randomized controlled trial, Abstract 185, that demonstrated that olanzapine therapy was actually way more effective than prochlorperazine for patients with intractable chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. I found that very compelling abstract. And then there was Elyse Richelle Parks who reported on the effectiveness of a virtual sustained tobacco treatment, Abstract 376 [a clinical trial conducted by ECOG-ACRIN within the NCI Community Oncology Research Program]. This tobacco control intervention is remotely administered using technology that was presented in today's session on leveraging technology to enhance multidisciplinary care delivery.  That too was amazing to behold. Dr. Fumiko Chino: I've been so impressed within my, at least my interactions with the Quality Care Symposium for the last several years about how this meeting really creates the perfect space for this type of science, which can be frankly underappreciated at other meetings. You know, something like a QI project, a quality improvement project leading to an overall survival benefit or a trial like you mentioned, the randomized control trial for olanzapine, which specifically had a quality-of-life endpoint, meaning that patient quality-of-life was a compelling justification for optimal nausea control. These things are really underappreciated sometimes at the larger scientific meetings, and the ASCO Quality Care Symposium is really where these types of studies and this type of research really shines; it's very patient-centered. You mentioned the patient voice being a really integral part, and I certainly agree with that. The entire meeting started with a session featuring a phenomenal patient advocate, Jamil Rivers, who was diagnosed with de novo stage 4 metastatic breast cancer. And her experience with her primary treatment really highlighted some of the care gaps that Black women experience in their journey with breast cancer. And it really charged her to actually create a patient navigation organization to help Black women with breast cancer get more evidence-based care to make sure that they were actually asking the questions that needed to be asked, getting the resources that they qualified for, and making sure they were getting evidence-based care. Now shifting gears a little bit, in oncology and across medicine, there's actually been some major challenges with drug shortages. I'd like to ask you about the session that was featured to inform oncologists about what we need to know about navigating the complexities of the pharmaceutical supply chain. Do you mind sharing highlights from that discussion, Ray? Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: I will, Fumiko, but before I do that, I have to follow up on what you said about Jamil Rivers, the breast cancer survivor and advocate who leads the Chrysalis Initiative. She made the statement of the meeting [in my opinion] when she said, “A hospital encounter for a Black woman is like a Black man being pulled over by the police.” Wow. I mean, that's a direct quote. It suddenly helped me understand my wife's many years-long anxiety whenever she has to deal with encounters with clinicians and health care systems. But about that wonderful session on the challenges with the pharmaceutical supply chain. For me, there were two key highlights. One was Dr. Deborah Patt's discussion on the growing influence of pharmacy benefit managers, PBMs, on the cost and delivery of cancer care. And then there is Jason Weston's discussion of how U.S. generic oncology drug manufacturing has moved almost entirely out of the U.S. with this incredible unrealistic price focus, almost so focused on price competition, almost totally ignoring quality and safety. And paradoxically, that fierce competition has inhibited competition, right? So as the margins have shrunk and all these generic drug manufacturers have moved overseas with little oversight, the supply chain gets disrupted because these companies are not able to invest in processes, in their manufacturing facilities and so on. So, when something goes wrong, all of us become vulnerable. And the other striking thing I learned from Jason was this problem is not new. It is not new. It's been with us for decades. And without comprehensive solutions, unfortunately, it's not going to go away. So, these are some of the examples of things that I would really love the podcast audience to go and check out for themselves. Dr. Fumiko Chino: I will just highlight one additional aspect of that session, which was actually the oral abstract (Abstract 1) that was embedded into the session that was specifically about how when during the cisplatin shortage of last year, when that drug was out of stock, which is honestly a very widely available, typically cheap medication, Dr. Jody Garey actually presented on the fact that the things that were substituted were actually far more expensive, and that actually led to not just people not getting the standard of care due to the drug shortages, but also increased costs. So, the bizarre side effect of the race to the bottom in terms of price competition is the fact that during these shortage periods, there's actually a sharp increase in the overall cost, not just to the administration, but also in terms of payer costs and patient cost sharing. So, it is sort of a lose-lose situation. And that was really highlighted to me by that abstract. And I'm so grateful for the research that really puts these experiences that we see in our clinic, things like drug shortages, in a larger perspective of how things like health policy and reimbursement and some of the nitty-gritty that goes on beyond the scenes in terms of oncology practice really is ending up impacting patient care. Now Ray, is there anything else you'd like to highlight before we wrap up the podcast? Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: One I maybe should highlight was the discussion about DEI, which is obviously a contentious topic. And we had Dr. Tawana Thomas Johnson with the American Cancer Society tell us how DEI has evolved from something that everybody seemed like they were eager to support and champion in 2020 to a kind of backlash...how we moved from $5 billion in pledges by corporations to support DEI initiatives in 2020 after the George Floyd murder to now where everybody is wanting to roll things back. And yet in the face of this, wanting to roll things back, wanting to respond to the inevitable backlash, there is this commitment still that some companies have had to DEI and workforce development ideas, so nevertheless, ongoing support. For me, that was a bright spot. Dr. Fumiko Chino: I have to say, as someone who started going to the ASCO Quality Care Symposium as a trainee, I've been really encouraged myself in terms of bright spots for this meeting about the engagement from trainees, from medical students to residents and fellows to early faculty. We even had someone who had just graduated high school ask us one of the questions in a session. And that really highlighted for me that this meeting is a very young meeting. It really is the next generation of health services researchers. And that has always been one of the joys about some of the discussions because I feel like the science presented, the education presented is sparking new collaborations, new research paradigms, new mission driven research for another generation. And it's been just simply phenomenal. Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Yeah, the networking opportunities. Wow. It was such a joy to behold people getting together, breaking off in small clusters, interacting with each other, strangers meeting and hitting it off. I mean, just what a wonderful meeting this is. Dr. Fumiko Chino: Yeah, I have to highlight that. Certainly, at my first ASCO Quality meeting at this point, I think eight years ago, I went to one of those Meet the Expert luncheons, had a great conversation with a phenomenal researcher who I still obviously very much admire. And I was sitting at a table at a Meet the Expert luncheon today. And I just felt so invigorated by some of the conversations that I had with the next generation of researchers about how to define their lane, their passion, and how to continue to advance the field. Thank you, Ray, for sharing your key takeaways from the 2024 ASCO Quality Care Symposium and for leading a truly robust program this year. Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Thank you, Fumiko. This has been a labor of love as you will find when you take on this responsibility for next year's meeting. This has been my pleasure. Dr. Fumiko Chino: Thank you so much. I'm really excited about the program that we're going to start planning in Chicago next year. Everyone listening can mark their calendars for October in Chicago. I really want to thank our listeners for your time today. You will find the links to the sessions and the abstracts that we discussed in the transcript of this episode. And if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer:    The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.    Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Follow today's speakers: Dr. Fumiko Chino @fumikochino Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon  @ROsarogiagbon    Follow ASCO on social media:  @ASCO on Twitter  ASCO on Facebook  ASCO on LinkedIn    Disclosures:  Dr. Fumiko Chino: No relationships to disclose Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon:   Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Lilly, Pfizer, Gillead  Honoraria: Medscape, Biodesix  Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, American Cancer Society, Triptych Health Partners, Genetech/Roche, National Cancer Institute, LUNGevity  Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: 2 US and 1 China patents for lymph node specimen collection kit and metho of pathologic evaluation   Other Relationship: Oncobox Device, Inc.

Dr. Lillian Siu and Dr. Melvin Chua discuss the new technologies and novel therapeutics that were featured at the 2024 ASCO Breakthrough meeting. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Lillian Siu: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Lillian Siu, a medical oncologist and director of the Phase 1 Trials Program at the Princess Margaret Cancer Center in Toronto, Canada, and a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto. On today's episode, we'll be discussing key takeaways from the 2024 ASCO Breakthrough meeting in Yokohama, Japan. Joining me for this discussion is Dr. Melvin Chua, who served as the chair of Breakthrough's Program Committee. Dr. Chua is the head of the Department for Head, Neck and Thoracic Cancers in the Division of Radiation Oncology at the National Cancer Center in Singapore. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Chua, it's great to be speaking with you today and congratulations on a very successful Breakthrough meeting. Dr. Melvin Chua: Thanks Dr. Siu. It was really inspiring to come together again to showcase the innovative work of world-renowned experts, clinicians, researchers, med-tech pioneers, and drug developers from around the globe. Our theme this year was inclusivity and thus it was important to bring people together again in the Asia Pacific region and to foster international collaborations that are so important in advancing cancer care. This year, we invited 65 international faculty, of which 55% were from Asia. Also, importantly, we achieved approximately a 50-50 split for male to female representation. These are remarkable statistics for the meeting, and we really hope to retain this for future Breakthrough [meetings]. Dr. Lillian Siu: The meeting featured renowned keynote speakers who shared great insights on new technologies and therapies that are shaping the future of drug development and care delivery. Let's first talk about artificial intelligence and the keynote address by Dr. Andrew Trister. He gave a very interesting talk titled, “Plaiting the Golden Braid: How Artificial Intelligence Informs the Learning Health System.” What are the key messages from his talk? Dr. Melvin Chua: Couldn't agree with you more, Dr. Siu. Dr. Trister is the chief medical and scientific officer of Verily, a precision health company. He previously worked in digital health and AI at The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and worked at Apple where he led clinical research and machine learning with Apple partners. But perhaps it was really his background and training as a radiation oncologist that was most pertinent as he was able to weave both the components of new AI models and the applications and pitfalls in the clinic to the audience. Dr. Trister provided a very high-level view through the history of AI and showcased the progression of the different AI models and he basically explained between deep and shallow methods as well as deductive logic versus inductive probabilistic methods. He then provided several clinical examples where these models have shown their utility in the clinic, for example, pathology and so forth. At the same time, he illustrated several pitfalls with these models. So overall, I think Dr. Trister's talk was very well received by the audience with several key messages, including the importance of [using] high-quality data as the basis of a good AI model. AI was also addressed in an Education Session that looked at Artificial Intelligence in the Cancer Clinic. And we had a panel of experts that highlighted current progress and successes with AI in the clinic, advances with AI assisted pathology for clinical research and precision medicine, large language models (LLMs) for applications in the clinic, and how we could leverage AI in precision oncology. And from this session, I had several key takeaways. Dr. Alexander Pearson [of the University of Chicago] gave a very illustrative talk on how multimodal information across clinical omics, radiological information and multi omics could be used to improve diagnostic tasks and clinical prediction across different cancers. And Dr. Joe Yeong [of Singapore General Hospital] gave a very good talk on how AI can be applied in digital pathology to accelerate research in immunology and help in the development of immunotherapies. Dr. Danielle Bitterman [of Brigham and Women's Hospital] shared very good examples of how LLMs could be used in a clinic. And I think the example that really stood out for me was how LLMs could be deployed to create responses to patient queries. And of course, the big question in the room was: How could AI eventually encapsulate compassion in their response? I think this again showcased how LLMs could really help to accelerate our clinical work going forward. And ultimately circling back to data, Dr. Caroline Chung [of MD Anderson] gave a very poignant description on the importance of data quality and how poor-quality data could eventually lead to underperforming AI models. So all in all, I think this was a great session. And what do you think, Dr. Siu? Dr. Lillian Siu: Melvin, I totally agree with you. I like all your comments and I really enjoyed the keynote as well as the session on AI in the cancer clinic chaired by Dr. Pearson. I think all these sessions were really informative. Discussions on the latest AI and machine learning, algorithms and technologies on digital pathology, LLMs and big data, as you said, really enables the attendees, especially clinicians like me, to gain a deep understanding of how AI can be translated to practical applications. Dr. Melvin Chua: Great. So, Dr. Siu, let's talk about some of the novel therapeutics that were featured at the meeting. Again, this was an important session for Breakthrough, and it's always been there. So could you share some highlights from the sessions on novel drug development from your perspective? Dr. Lillian Siu: Yes, indeed. Drug development is such an exciting aspect of this meeting. On Day 3 of the meeting, we had a keynote by Dr. Shimon Sakaguchi of Osaka University, who discussed “Targeting Regulatory T cells (Tregs) in Cancer: The Science, Trials, and Future.” And he talked about T cells, especially Treg biology, the role of Tregs in immune regulation, new developments in Treg immuno-oncology drugs, and how we can actually target Tregs to treat early cancers, etc. This talk is particularly exciting because there are now anti CCR8 antibodies in the clinic that specifically target Tregs, and some early signals of anti-tumor activities are already being observed. Dr. Sakaguchi also emphasized the importance of combination sequence and timing of drugs for the successful use of cancer immunotherapeutic agents. I also want to emphasize the Education Session that followed, titled, “The Future of Immunotherapy, New Drugs and New Ideas.” In that particular session, we heard about engineering T-cell immunity to eradicate tumors. We heard about CAR T-cell therapy in GI cancers, novel immunotherapeutic combinations, and T-cell engagers, which are bispecifics in cancer. While success with some of these immunotherapeutic modalities, such as cell therapies and T-cell engagers have been largely seen in hematological malignancies, we are beginning to observe efficacy signals in solid tumors. For example, the CAR T targeting Claudin18.2 in gastrointestinal cancers and the recently approved FDA-approved DLL3/CD3 bispecific T-cell engager, tarlatamab, in small cell lung cancer are really exciting examples. We also heard from investigators who are exploring neoadjuvant therapies in the neoadjuvant therapy session, and the key takeaway from that session is that we have growing interest in using neoadjuvant therapy or perioperative therapy. In other words, neoadjuvant plus adjuvant therapy in different cancers. In the neoadjuvant session, there were updates provided by different experts on the roles of neoadjuvant therapy in melanoma, liver cancer, bladder cancer, and nasopharyngeal cancer. Increasingly, there is randomized trial evidence to support the use of neoadjuvant therapy or perioperative immunotherapy in several cancer types with survival-based endpoints. Very exciting indeed. Dr. Melvin Chua: Indeed, I couldn't agree with you more. I think one of the things that went into designing the case-based discussions this year was that we wanted to talk about cancers that were relevant to this part of the world and hence we again showcased lung cancers, gastric cancers and melanomas, and whereby we have again perspectives from an expert from the West coupled to an expert from the East, thereby showcasing the diversity of practice around the world. The other thing that we did this year was we decided to pair the case-based discussions with the keynotes and the Education Sessions as well. For example, on Day 3, we had Dr. Sakaguchi speak on Tregs, as you mentioned. And this was followed by an in-depth session on new immunotherapies, and then followed by a case-based discussion on different melanoma cases on the role of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in this disease, and the strikingly relevance of response to prognostication. This is an important trait that we're seeing now that seems to pan out across different cancers, where we find that neoadjuvant response to combination systemic therapies and/or radiotherapy is a strong prognosticator. Dr. Lillian Siu: So, Dr. Chua, we've discussed some breakthrough treatments and promising advances in cancer care, and we've touched upon some barriers to success in cancer treatment. I would like to ask you about the keynote address by Dr. Raffaella Casolino of the World Health Organization, who spoke passionately about efforts by the WHO and its partners to build equity in cancer care. Can you share some highlights with us? Dr. Melvin Chua: Absolutely, Dr. Siu. In spite of the tremendous advances we've seen in recent years in oncology, there are still major disparities in cancer care, such as cost and access, which affect patients worldwide. I think Dr. Casolino's talk was a very nice overview whereby she showed, first of all, the WHO's impact in terms of the WHO Cancer Resolution initiative that was implemented in 2017, where through this initiative, WHO has impacted 100 countries, invested $1 billion in funds, and that has led to millions of lives saved. But she then really drilled down to some of the key examples of the focus of the WHO in terms of equalizing care in cancer. I think one which struck me was the appreciation of the disparities in the clinical trials landscape. I think it is clear that there's still a huge barrier to clinical trials between the high- and middle-income countries and the low- and middle-income countries, and the majority of clinical trials these days are industry sponsored and we really need to look at leveling the playing field in this regard. Then she highlighted the WHO's work on trying to lower the barriers to precision oncology. And I think there are several issues in that sense, but I think what the WHO has really worked hard on is promoting education for genomic medicine, where they've done several reviews with experts around the world to educate the field across the world on how we interpret and apply genomics in the clinic. So all in all, it was very interesting to hear Dr. Casolino's insights from a policy perspective, and again, this emphasizes that there's so much work to be done at the end of the day and the dialogue needs to continue. We also heard about policy, academic and industry perspectives in the context of clinical trials, and that led to a discussion on real-world evidence generation for regulatory approvals. It was very nice that we had a session on that at the end of Breakthrough 2024 (Real-World Evidence and Clinical Trials: Beyond the Ivory Tower). And in that session, we heard from Dr. Shaalan Beg [of the NIH], and Dr. Janet Dancey [of Queen's University] who represented views from academia and Dr. Hidetoshi Hayashi [of Kindai University Hospital] shared perspectives on decentralized trials. I'd like to encourage our listeners to watch these sessions if they were unable to attend. The content is very rich, and I'm sure they'll learn from it. Dr. Lillian Siu: Thank you so much, Dr. Chua. Is there anything else you would like to cover before we wrap up the podcast today? Dr. Melvin Chua: Thank you, Dr. Siu. The thing I really want to emphasize is, apart from all these Educational Sessions and having very eminent keynote speakers, one of the key points that we really want to bring out for Breakthrough is to showcase the high-quality research. This year we had 300 abstracts submitted and they were all high quality, cutting across trials, omics research, AI and technology, and eventually we selected 235 of them and we were able to showcase some of them across three oral sessions over three days. I think this is an important component of Breakthrough that we really wish to continue building upon where people are now excited to use this forum to present their work. Dr. Lillian Siu: Thank you so much, Dr. Chua. I really enjoyed our discussions today. I look forward to seeing how the Breakthrough meeting will continue to grow in future years. Dr. Melvin Chua: Thank you again, Dr. Siu. Thank you for all your leadership and efforts in making Breakthrough a successful meeting series the past few years. Dr. Lillian Siu: Thank you to our listeners for your time today. You'll find links to the session discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcast. Thank you.   Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speakers:   Dr. Lilian Siu  @lillian_siu  Dr. Melvin Chua  @DrMLChua    Follow ASCO on social media:    @ASCO on Twitter    ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures:   Dr. Lillian Siu:  Leadership (Immediate family member): Treadwell Therapeutics  Stock and Other Ownership Interests (Immediate family member): Agios    Consulting or Advisory Role: Merck, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Roche, Voronoi Inc., Oncorus, GSK, Seattle Genetics, Arvinas, Navire, Janpix, Relay Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, Janssen, Research Funding (Institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Amgen, Astellas Pharma, Shattuck Labs, Symphogen, Avid, Mirati Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Amgen   Dr. Melvin Chua:  Leadership, Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Digital Life Line  Honoraria: Janssen Oncology, Varian  Consulting or Advisory Role: Janssen Oncology, Merck Sharp & Dohme, ImmunoSCAPE, Telix Pharmaceuticals, IQVIA, BeiGene  Speakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Bayer, Pfizer, Janssen   Research Funding: PVmed, Decipher Biosciences, EVYD Technology, MVision, BeiGene, EVYD Technology, MVision, BeiGene  Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: High Sensitivity Lateral Flow Immunoassay for Detection of Analyte in Samples (10202107837T), Singapore. (Danny Jian Hang Tng, Chua Lee Kiang Melvin, Zhang Yong, Jenny Low, Ooi Eng Eong, Soo Khee Chee)    

Dr. Shaalan Beg and Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla discuss the potential of artificial intelligence to assist with patient recruitment and clinical trial matching using real-world data and next-generation sequencing results. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Shaalan Beg: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Shaalan Beg, your guest host for the podcast today. I'm an adjunct associate professor at UT Southwestern's Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center in Dallas and senior advisor for clinical research at the National Cancer Institute. On today's episode, we will be discussing the promise of artificial intelligence to improve patient recruitment in clinical trials and advanced clinical research. Joining me for this discussion is Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla, the medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in Philadelphia. He's also the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, an AI-driven platform that matches patients with clinical trials and novel therapies.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.   Arturo, it's great to have you on the podcast today.  Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Thanks so much, Shaalan. It's great to be here and talking to you today.  Dr. Shaalan Beg: So we're all familiar with the limitations and inefficiencies in patient recruitment for clinical trials, but there are exciting new technologies that are addressing these challenges. Your group developed a first-in-class, AI-enabled matching system that's designed to automate and expedite processes using real-world data and integrating next-generation sequencing results into the algorithm. You presented work at the ASCO Annual Meeting this year where you showed the benefits of AI and NGS in clinical trial matching and you reported about a twofold increase in potential patient eligibility for trials. Can you tell us more about this study?  Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Absolutely. And this is just part of the work that we have seen over the last several years, trying to overcome challenges that are coming because of all these, as you mentioned, inefficiencies and limitations, particularly in the manual patient trial matching. This is very time consuming, as all of us know; many of those in the audience as well experience it on a daily basis, and it's resource intensive. It takes specialized folks who are able to understand the nuances in oncology, and it takes, on average, even for the most experienced research coordinator or principal investigator oncologist, 25 minutes per trial. Not only on top of that, but in compound there's a lack of comprehensive genomic testing, NGS, and that complicates the process in terms of inability to know what patients are eligible for, and it can delay also the process even further.  So, to address those issues, we at Massive Bio are working with other institutions, and we're part of this … called the Precision Cancer Consortium, which is a combination of 7 of the top 20 top pharma companies in oncology, and we got them together. And let's say, okay, the only way to show something that is going to work at scale is people have to remove their silos and barriers and work as a collaborative approach. If we're going to be able to get folks tested more often and in more patients, assess for clinical trials, at least as an option, we need to understand further the data. And after a bunch of efforts that happened, and you're also seeing those efforts in CancerX and other things that we're working on together, but what we realize here is using an AI-enabled matching system to basically automate and expedite the process using what we call real-world data, which is basically data from patients that are actually currently being treated, and integrating any NGS results and comparing that to what we can potentially do manually. The idea was to do multi-trial matching, because if we do it for one study, yeah, it will be interesting, but it will not show the potential applicability in the real world.  So with all that background, the tool itself, just to give you the punchline of it, was proven highly effective in terms of efficiency. We were able to increase the number of potential matches, and not only that, but reducing the time to the matching. So basically, instead of spending 25 minutes, it could be done in a matter of seconds. And when you compound all that across multiple clinical trials, in this case, it was several sponsors coming together, we were able to reduce the manual effort of seeing patients and testing for clinical trials to basically 1 hour when it would have otherwise taken a ridiculous amount of time. And it was quantified as 19,500 hours of manual work, compared to 1 hour done by the system to uniquely match a cohort of about 5,600 patients that came into the platform. And this was across 23 trials. Now imagine if we can do it for the 14,000 clinical trials currently in clinicaltrials.gov.   So for us, this kind of was an eye-opening situation that if we can increase not only the efficiency but find even more trials by integrating comprehensive genomic testing, which in this case was a twofold increase in eligibility for clinical trials, that gives us not only the opportunity for optimized processes using AI but also a call to action that there is still a lot of under-genotyping. And I know American Cancer Society and ASCO and many others are working hard on getting that into fruition, but we need to have systems that remind us that certain patients are not tested yet and that can improve not only real patients, but the R&D and the process of innovation in the future. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, it's always an important reminder that even some of the highest impact IT solutions or AI solutions are most effective if they can be integrated into our normal clinical processes and into the normal workflow that we have in our clinics to help clinicians do their work quickly and more efficiently. Can you talk about how, over the last few years, the availability of NGS data in our electronic medical record (EMR) has evolved and whether that's evolving for the better? And what are some next steps in terms of making that data available at EMR so that such solutions can then pull that data out and do clinical trial matching?  Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Yes. So one of the things that we have seen over the last couple of years is because of the applicability of the 21st Century Cures Act, there is less “information blocking,” which is patients not being able to access their information in real time. Now, with the appearance of health exchanges, with patient-centric approaches, which is something that many innovators, including ours, are trying to apply, it's really becoming more relevant. So it's not only helping us to find the patients when they really need to get tested, but also is giving us the opportunity to put those patients into the right treatment pathway when found. Something that's still a challenge and I think we can work by being more collaborative once again – is my dream – is having these pre-screening hubs where no matter where you are in your cancer journey, you just go into that funnel and then are able to see, “Okay, you are in the second-line setting for non-small cell lung cancer, EGFR-mutated. Now, do you have a meta amplification, then you go for this study or this trial. Oh, you haven't been tested yet. You should get tested. You're a pancreas cancer patient who is KRAS wild type; well, there is a significant chance that you may have a biomarker because that's where most patients are enriched for.” So having that opportunity to at scale, just for the whole country, to get those patients access to that information, I think is crucial for the future of oncology. And I think you working at the NCI, more than most, know how the impact of that can help for those underrepresented patients to get more access to better treatment options and whatnot. And we can activate clinical trials as well in new models, decentralized models, adjusting time models, all those things can be leveraged by using biomarker testing in real time. Identification when the patient really needs a trial option or a medication option, because the data is telling us when to activate that in real time. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And identifying the patient for a potential clinical trial is one challenge. In oncology, given a lot of our trials, we are looking to enroll people at a specific time in their disease journey. So we call it first-line or second-line or third-line, becomes the next challenge. So just knowing someone has mutation number 1, 2, or 3 isn't enough to say they would be eligible for a second-line BRAF X, Y and Z mutation at a given trial. I've heard you talk a lot about this last-mile navigation for people once you've identified that they may be a soft match for a clinical trial. Can you talk about what you've seen in the ecosystem being developed on how AI is helping both clinics and patients navigate this last mile from the time they're identified for a clinical trial to the time they actually receive cycle 1, day 1? Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Yeah, absolutely. And that is such a critical point because, as you know, we have helped tons of patients getting trial options in thousands of cases. But even my own patients, I give them a report for trial options and they're like, “Okay, I still need help.” And we have been talking with ASCO, with the American Cancer Society, and many other very good teams, and what we see as an opportunity in technology here is leveraging those cancer journeys to know when the patient really has the opportunity to enroll in a trial, because this is a very dynamic environment. Not only the patient's condition changes because their cancer progresses, the hemoglobin changes, the cancer moves from one place to the other, and there's nuances in between, but also new medications are coming up, studies open and close, sites open and close.  So having this information as a hub, as what we call a command center, is the key to make this happen. And we can use the same tools that we use for Uber or for Instacart or whichever thing you want to do; it's already the same concept. When you need groceries, you don't need groceries every day. But Amazon gives you a ding that's like, “Well, I think you may be running out of milk,” because they already know how often you buy it, or just having the data behind the scenes of how typically these, in this case, patient journeys, may manifest based on the biomarker. So let's say a smoldering multiple myeloma is not the same across. One patient with biomarkers that make them very high risk, the risk of progressing to a multiple myeloma, first-line treatment-eligible patient is going to be much different than someone who has better risk cytogenetics. So using that tool to optimize the cancer journeys of those patients and being able to notify them in real time of new trial options, and also knowing when the patient really has that disease progression so there's a time of activation for trial matching again, the same way you get a credit score for buying a house, then you know exactly what options are in front of you at that very moment. And that is the last-mile component, which is going to be key. What we have seen that we feel is important to invest on, and we have invested heavily on it, is that until the patient doesn't sign the consent form for the clinical trial, that patient is completely unknown to most people. The site doesn't know them because they haven't been there, and they may be there, but they don't know about the options sometimes. But no one's going to invest in getting that patient to the finish line. There's a lot of support for patients on trials, but not before they enroll on trials. And we feel that this is a big opportunity to really exponentially grow the chances of patients enrolling in trials if we support them all the way from the very time they get diagnosed with cancer in any setting. And we can help that patient on a very unique journey to find the trial options using technology. So it's very feasible. We see it once again in many other equally complex tasks, so why not do it in oncology when we have all the bonafides across wanting to do this. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Can you give examples of where you are seeing it done outside of oncology that's a model that one can replicate? Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: I mean, oncology is the toughest use case to crack. You have experiences with DCTs in the past and all that. So the big opportunities are for patients, for example, in psychiatry, when they need certain counseling and help. We see that also in medical devices, when people have diabetes and they really need a device specifically for that unique situation, or also for patients with cardiovascular risk that they can in real time get access to novel therapeutics. And that's how they have been able to enroll so quickly. And all these GLP-1 inhibitors, all those models are really almost completely decentralized nowadays in something that we can extrapolate for oncology once we have aligned the ecosystem to make it see them. This is something that we can really revolutionize care while we manage all the complex variables that typically come with oncology uses.  Dr. Shaalan Beg: I would imagine while you translate those learnings from outside of oncology into oncology, a lot of those processes will be human and AI combination activities. And as you learn more and more, the human component becomes a smaller fraction, and the technology and the AI becomes more of a component. Are you seeing a similar transition in the clinical trial matching space as well? Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Yes. So that's why people say humans are going to be replaced. They're not. Patients still want to see a human face that they recognize, they trust. Even family members of mine want to hear from me, even if they are in the top place in the world. What we can change with technology are those things that are typically just friction points. In this case, information gathering, collecting records, getting the data structured in a way that we can use it for matching effectively, knowing in real time when the patient progresses, so we can really give them the chances of knowing what's available in real time. And collecting the information from all these other stakeholders. Like, is the site open? Is the budget approved for that place? Is the insurance allowing the specific … do they have e-consent? Those things can be fully automated because they're just burdensome. They're not helping anyone. And we can really make it decentralized for e-consent, for just getting a screening. They don't need to be screened at the site for something that they're going to receive standard of care. We can really change that, and that's something that we're seeing in the space that is changing, and hopefully we can translate it fully in oncology once we are getting the word out. And I think this is a good opportunity to do so. Dr. Shaalan Beg: You talked about your dream scenario for clinical trial matching. When you think about your dream scenario as a practicing oncologist, what are the AI tools that you are most excited about making their way into the clinic, either wishful thinking or practically? Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: I typically get feedback from all over the place on doing this, and I also have my own thoughts. But I always come to this for a reason. We all became physicians and oncologists because we like being physicians. We like to talk to patients. We want to spend the time. I tell folks in my clinic, I will see a thousand patients all the time as long as I don't have to do notes, as long as I don't have to place orders. But of course, they will have to hire 1,000 people ancillary to do all the stuff that we do.  If we can go back and spend all that time that we use on alert fatigue, on clicking, on gathering things, fighting insurance, and really helping align those incentives with clinical trials and biomarker testing and really making it a mankind or a humankind situation where we're all in this really together to solve the problem, which is cancer, that will be my dream come true. So I don't have to do anything that is clerical, that is not really helping me, but I want to use that AI to liberate me from that and also use the data that is generated for better insights. I think that I know my subject of expertise, but there's so many things happening all the time that it is hard to keep up, no matter how smart you are. If the tool can give me insights that I didn't even know, then leverage that as a CME or a board certification, that would be a dream come true. Of course, I'm just dreaming here, but it's feasible. Many of these ideas, as I mentioned, they're not new. The key thing is getting them done. The innovative part is getting stuff done, because I'm sure there's a gazillion people who have the same ideas as I did, but they just don't know whom to talk to or who is going to make it happen in reality. And that's my call to action to people: Let's work together and make this happen. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Well, Arturo, thanks a lot for sharing your insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Well, thank you so much for the time and looking forward to having more exchanges and conversations and seeing everyone in the field. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You'll find a link to the studies discussed today in the transcript of this episode. And if you value the insights that you hear on the podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.   Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Find out more about today's speakers:  Dr. Shaalan Beg    @ShaalanBeg Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla @DrBonillaOnc   Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on Twitter   ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures:    Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Leadership: Massive Bio Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Massive Bio Consulting or Advisory Role: Massive Bio, Bayer, PSI, BrightInsight, Cardinal Health, Pfizer, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Regeneron, Verily, Medscape Speakers' Bureau: Guardant Health, Bayer, Amgen, Ipsen, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo, Natera   Dr. Shaalan Beg:    Consulting or Advisory Role: Ispen, Cancer Commons, Foundation Medicine, Genmab/Seagen    Speakers' Bureau: Sirtex    Research Funding (An Immediate Family Member): ImmuneSensor Therapeutics    Research Funding (Institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tolero Pharmaceuticals, Delfi Diagnostics, Merck, Merck Serono, AstraZeneca/MedImmune

Dr. Allison Zibelli and Dr. Erika Hamilton discuss the results of the DESTINY-Breast06 trial in HR+, HER2-low and HER2-ultralow metastatic breast cancer and the A-BRAVE trial in early triple-negative breast cancer, the results of which were both presented at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Allison Zibelli: Hello, I'm Dr. Allison Zibelli, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm an associate professor of medicine and breast medical oncologist at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center of Jefferson Health in Philadelphia. My guest today is Dr. Erika Hamilton, a medical oncologist and director of breast cancer research at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute. We'll be discussing the DESTINY-Breast06 trial, which showed a progression-free advantage with the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) compared to chemotherapy in hormone receptor-positive HER2-low or HER2-ultralow metastatic breast cancer. We'll address the implications of this study for the community, including the importance of expanding pathology assessments to include all established subgroups with HER2 expression, and the promise of expanding eligibility for antibody-drug conjugates. We'll also highlight advances in triple-negative breast cancer, focusing on the A-BRAVE trial, the first study reporting data on an immune checkpoint inhibitor avelumab in patients with triple-negative breast cancer with invasive residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Erika, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Thanks so much, Allison. Happy to join. Dr. Allison Zibelli: Antibody-drug conjugates are rapidly changing the treatment landscape in breast cancer. The data from the DESTINY-Breast06 trial suggests that trastuzumab deruxtecan may become a preferred first-line treatment option for most patients with HER2-low or HER2-ultralow metastatic breast cancer after progression on endocrine therapy. First, could you remind our listeners, what's the definition of HER2-ultralow and what were the findings of this trial? Dr. Erika Hamilton: Yeah, those are fantastic questions. Ultralow really has never been talked about before. Ultralow is part of a subset of the IHC zeros. So it's those patients that have HER2-tumor staining that's less than 10% and incomplete but isn't absolutely zero. It's even below that +1 or +2 IHC that we have classified as HER2-low. Now, I think what's important to remember about D-B06, if you recall, D-B04 (DESTINY-Breast04) was our trial looking at HER2-low, is that D-B06 now included HER2-low as well as this HER2-ultralow category that you asked about. And it also moved trastuzumab deruxtecan up into the frontline. If you recall, D-B04 was after 1 line of cytotoxic therapy. So now this is really after exhausting endocrine therapy before patients have received other chemotherapy. And what we saw was an improvement in progression-free survival that was pretty significant: 13.2 months versus 8.1 months, it was a hazard ratio of 0.62. And you can ask yourself, “well, was it mainly those HER2-low patients that kind of drove that benefit? What about the ultralow category?” And when we look at ultralow, it was no different: 13.2 months versus 8.3 months, hazard ratio, again, highly significant. So I think it's really encouraging data and gives us some information about using this drug earlier for our patients with hormone receptor-positive but HER2-negative disease.  Dr. Allison Zibelli: I thought this study was really interesting because it's a patient population that I find very difficult to treat, the hormone receptor-positive metastatic patient that's not responding to endocrine therapy anymore. But it's important to mention that T-DXd resulted in more serious toxicities compared to traditional chemotherapy in this study. So how do you choose which patients to offer this to? Dr. Erika Hamilton: Yeah, those are both great points. So you're right, this is after endocrine therapy. And in fact, about 85% of these patients had received at least 2 prior lines of endocrine therapy. So I have some people kind of asking, “Well, if endocrine therapy really isn't benefiting everyone in the second-line setting post-CDK, should we just move to the ADCs?” And, no, probably we should really make sure that we're exhausting endocrine therapies for those patients that are going to benefit. And once we determine somebody has endocrine-resistant disease, that's when we would think about switching. In terms of the side effects, I think you're right. It's mainly ILD that's probably the more serious side effect that we worry about a little bit with trastuzumab deruxtecan. The good news is, through multiple trials, we've gotten a little bit better at managing this. We've pretty much all but eliminated any fatal cases of ILD, definitely less than 1% now. ILD rates, depending on what study you look for, kind of ranges in that 10% to 15% range. Any grade ILD on D-B06 was 11.3%. So really kind of making sure that we look for ILD at scans, making sure that patients are educated to tell us about any new pulmonary symptoms: cough, exertional dyspnea, shortness of breath at rest, etc. But I think the most common side effects that we really deal with on a daily basis with trastuzumab deruxtecan, luckily, is nausea, which we've gotten better at managing with the 2- or 3-drug antiemetic regimen, and probably a little bit of fatigue as well. Dr. Allison Zibelli: Thank you. So, I think for most people in the community, the sticking point here will be expanding pathology assessments to include all of the subgroups, including the ultralow. Most patients in the community are not testing for HER2-low and HER2-ultralow now. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Historically, we kind of all did HER2 IHC, right? And then as FISH became available, there were a lot of institutions that moved to FISH and maybe didn't have IHC anymore. And now, at least in my institution, we do both. But I think it's a very important point that you made that IHC was really designed to pick out those patients that have HER2-high, the 3 pluses or the FISH amplified cases. It was not to tell the difference between a 1+ or a 2+ or a 0 that's not quite a 0 and a 1+. So I think you're right. I think this is tough. I probably have a little bit more of an interesting take on this than some people will. But data from ASCO, not this year but in 2023, there was actually a pretty eloquent study presented where they looked at serial biopsies in patients, and essentially, if you got up to 4 or 5 biopsies, you were guaranteed to have a HER2-low result. Now, this didn't even include ultralow, which is even easier. If we know we include ultralow, we're really talking about probably 85% to 90% of our patients now that have some HER2 expression. But if we biopsy enough, we're guaranteed to get a HER2 low.  And so I think the question really is, if we know IHC wasn't really designed to pick out these ultralows, and we know kind of greater than 90% of patients are going to have some expression, did we kind of develop this drug a little bit backwards? Because we thought we understood HER2, and the reality is this drug is a little bit more like a sacituzumab govitecan, where we don't test for the TROP2. Should we really be kind of serial biopsying these patients or should maybe most patients have access to at least trying this drug?  Dr. Allison Zibelli: So I don't think that most of my patients will really be happy to sign up for serial biopsies. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Agreed. Dr. Allison Zibelli: Do we have any emerging technologies for detecting low levels of HER2? You talked about how the IHC test isn't really designed to detect low levels of HER2. Do you think newer detection techniques such as immunofluorescence will make a difference, or will we have liquid biopsy testing for this? Dr. Erika Hamilton: Yeah, I think liquid biopsy may be a little bit hard, just because some of those circulating tumor cells are more of a mesenchymal-type phenotype and don't necessarily express all of the same receptors. Normally, if they're cytokeratin-positive, they do, but certainly there is a lot out there looking at more sensitive measures. You mentioned immunofluorescence, there are some even more quantitative measures looking at lower levels of HER2. I definitely think there will be. I guess, ultimately, with even the IHC zeros that are the less than 10% incomplete staining, having a PFS that was absolutely no different than the HER2 low, I guess the question is, how low can we really go? We know that even the IHC zeros doesn't mean that there's no HER2 expression on the cell surface. It just means that maybe there's a couple of thousand as opposed to 10,000 or 100,000 copies of HER2. And so it really appears that perhaps this drug really is wedded to having a lot of HER2 expression. So ultimately, I wonder how much we're going to have to use those tests, especially with what we know about tumor heterogeneity. We know that if we biopsy 1 lesion in the liver, biopsy a lymph node, or even another lesion in the liver, that the HER2 results can have some heterogeneity. And so ultimately, my guess is that most people have some HER2 expression on their breast cancer cells. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So maybe we're going to be using this for everybody in the future. Dr. Erika Hamilton: It certainly seems like we keep peeling back the onion and including more and more patients into the category that are eligible to receive this. I agree. Dr. Allison Zibelli: Let's move on to triple-negative breast cancer, namely the A-BRAVE trial. This was an interesting trial for patients that did not get neoadjuvant immunotherapy and testing 2 groups. The first group was those with residual disease after neoadjuvant conventional chemotherapy. The second group was people with high-risk disease identified upfront that had upfront surgery. The study found that adjuvant avelumab did not improve disease-free survival versus observation, which was the study's primary endpoint. But interestingly, there was a significant improvement in 3-year overall survival and distant disease-free survival. Can you give us your thoughts on that? Dr. Erika Hamilton: Yeah, I think this study was really interesting. Right now, the standard for our patients with larger or node-positive triple-negative cancers is KEYNOTE-522. It's a pretty tough regimen. It's kind of 2 sequential uses of 2 chemotherapies, so 4 chemotherapy agents total with pembrolizumab. But you're right, this study looked at those that had residual disease after neoadjuvant that didn't include immunotherapy, or those patients that didn't get neoadjuvant therapy, went to surgery, and then were receiving chemotherapy on the back end. I'm going to give you the numbers, because you're right. The 3-year disease-free survival rates were not statistically significant. It was 68.3% among those that had avelumab, 63.2% with those that had observation only. So the difference was 5.1% in favor of avelumab, but it wasn't statistically significant. A p value of 0.1, essentially. But when we looked at the 3-year overall survival rates, we saw the same pattern, those patients with the avelumab doing better, but it was 84.8% overall survival and not, unfortunately, dying, versus 76.3%. So the magnitude of benefit there was 8.5%, so about 3% higher than we saw for disease-free survival, and this was statistically significant.  So is this going to change practice for most patients? I probably don't think so. I think for our patients that have larger tumors that's recognized upfront or have node positivity, we're probably going to want to use neoadjuvant chemo. Being able to get a PCR is very prognostic for our patients and enables us to offer things on the back end, such as PARP inhibitors or further chemotherapy of a different type of chemotherapy. But for our patients that go to surgery and maybe the extent of their disease just isn't recognized initially, this could be an option. Dr. Allison Zibelli: I agree. I think this will be a really useful regimen for patients where we get the surprise lymph node that we weren't expecting, or somebody who comes to us, maybe without seeing the medical oncologist, who got upfront surgery. So I thought this was really interesting. What kind of translational studies do you think we're going to do to try and understand which patients would benefit from avelumab? Dr. Erika Hamilton: Yeah, I think that's a great question, and honestly, it's a question that we haven't really answered in the neoadjuvant setting either. Immunotherapy in breast cancer is just a little bit different than it is in some other diseases. We have a benefit for those patients that are PD-L1 positive in the first line. We really haven't seen benefit for metastatic outside of first line. And then in neoadjuvant, it was among all comers. We don't have to test for PD-L1. And now we have this avelumab data from A-BRAVE. I think the question is, is there's probably a subset of patients that are really getting benefit and a subset that aren't. And I don't know that PD-L1 testing is the right test. We know a lot of people are looking at TILs, so kind of lymphocytes that are infiltrating the tumor, a variety of other kind of immunologic markers. But my guess is that eventually we're going to get smart enough to tease out who actually needs the immunotherapy versus who isn't going to benefit. But we're not quite there yet. Dr. Allison Zibelli: Thank you, Erika, for sharing your valuable insights with us on the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Thanks so much for having me.  Dr. Allison Zibelli: And thank you to our listeners for joining us. You'll find the links to all the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you like this podcast and you value our insights, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. It really helps other people to find us. So thank you very much for listening today.   Disclaimer:   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.    Find out more about today's speakers:  Dr. Allison Zibelli Dr. Erika Hamilton @ErikaHamilton9   Follow ASCO on social media:  @ASCO on Twitter    ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures: Dr. Allison Zibelli:  None Disclosed   Dr. Erika Hamilton: Consulting or Advisory Role (Inst): Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Mersana, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Ellipses Pharma, Olema Pharmaceuticals, Stemline Therapeutics, Tubulis, Verascity Science, Theratechnologies, Accutar Biotechnology, Entos, Fosun Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Medical Pharma Services, Hosun Pharma, Zentalis Pharmaceuticals, Jefferies, Tempus Labs, Arvinas, Circle Pharma, Janssen, Johnson and Johnson   Research Funding (Inst): AstraZeneca, Hutchison MediPharma, OncoMed, MedImmune, Stem CentRx, Genentech/Roche, Curis, Verastem, Zymeworks, Syndax, Lycera, Rgenix, Novartis, Millenium, TapImmune, Inc., Lilly, Pfizer, Lilly, Pfizer, Tesaro, Boehringer Ingelheim, H3 Biomedicine, Radius Health, Acerta Pharma, Macrogenics, Abbvie, Immunomedics, Fujifilm, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Merus, Nucana, Regeneron, Leap Therapeutics, Taiho Pharmaceuticals, EMD Serono, Daiichi Sankyo, ArQule, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, CytomX Therapeutics, InventisBio, Deciphera, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, Zenith Epigentics, Arvinas, Harpoon, Black Diamond, Orinove, Molecular Templates, Seattle Genetics, Compugen, GI Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Dana-Farber Cancer Hospital, Shattuck Labs, PharmaMar, Olema Pharmaceuticals, Immunogen, Plexxikon, Amgen, Akesobio Australia, ADC Therapeutics, AtlasMedx, Aravive, Ellipses Pharma, Incyte, MabSpace Biosciences, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pionyr, Repetoire Immune Medicines, Treadwell Therapeutics, Accutar Biotech, Artios, Bliss Biopharmaceutical, Cascadian Therapeutics, Dantari, Duality Biologics, Elucida Oncology, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Relay Therapeutics, Tolmar, Torque, BeiGene, Context Therapeutics, K-Group Beta, Kind Pharmaceuticals, Loxo Oncology, Oncothyreon, Orum Therapeutics, Prelude Therapeutics, Profound Bio, Cullinan Oncology, Bristol-Myers Squib, Eisai, Fochon Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, Inspirna, Myriad Genetics, Silverback Therapeutics, Stemline Therapeutics

Dr. Shaalan Beg and Dr. Arjun Gupta discuss the rationale behind treatment breaks and assess the pros and cons based on feedback and data from patients with advanced-stage gastrointestinal cancers. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Shaalan Beg: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Shaalan Beg, an adjunct associate professor at UT Southwestern's Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center in Dallas and senior advisor for clinical research at the National Cancer Institute. I'll be your guest host for the podcast today.  On today's episode, we'll be discussing treatment holidays in GI cancers. Treatment holidays, also known as drug holidays, are increasingly being discussed in clinical practice and involve voluntarily halting treatment for a duration determined by a health care provider if believed to be beneficial for a patient's well-being. We'll address the rationale behind treatment holidays and explore their potential risks and benefits. Joining me for this discussion is Dr. Arjun Gupta, a GI medical oncologist and health services researcher at the University of Minnesota. Dr. Gupta's research on treatment-related time toxicity has explored the benefits of taking a break from treatment.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Arjun, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Arjun Gupta: Thanks, Shaalan. It's a joy to be here. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Your research at the intersection of oncology, supportive care, and care delivery is extremely interesting and important in today's day and age. And you've done extensive work on the concept of time toxicity in cancer treatment. So as we think about these discussions in the clinic on treatment holidays and we talk about risks and benefits, I was hoping that you could help explain the concept of time toxicity in cancer treatment and what our listeners should remember from this. Dr. Arjun Gupta: Sure. So time toxicity is simply the time commitments that cancer care imposes on people with cancer and their loved ones, and the burden that comes along with these commitments. When we specifically think about time toxicity associated with a particular cancer treatment, such as chemotherapy, it's the time costs of pursuing, receiving, and recovering from cancer treatment. Now, we have to acknowledge that much of cancer care is essential. We need blood tests to monitor organ function, we need chemo to shrink tumors, and we need a caring oncologist to break bad news. But we have to remember that oncology care is delivered in an imperfect world. Appointments that should take 10 minutes can take 5 hours. People can have uncoordinated appointments, so they're coming to the clinic 3, 4, 5 times a week. And this affects, of course, not only the patient themselves but also their informal care partners and the entire network around them. And this cancer care can completely consume people's lives, leaving no time for rest, recovery, or pursuing joyful activities.  We interviewed patients and care partners in some qualitative work, and this was specifically people with advanced-stage gastrointestinal cancers. And we asked them what cancer care was like, and some of the words will shock you. People said things like, “It's like being on a leash.” “My life is like being on an extended COVID lockdown.” “Cancer is a full-time job.” A very experienced oncologist said, “It's like being on call. You may or not get called into the hospital, but you need to always be available.” And so this concept of time toxicity really applies to all people with cancer, but perhaps most so for people with advanced-stage, incurable cancer, when time is limited and when treatment regimens are perhaps not offering massive survival benefits. And in some cases, the time costs of pursuing the treatment can even overtake the very marginal survival benefit offered by the treatment. Dr. Shaalan Beg: This is particularly relevant for gastrointestinal cancers that, even in the world of advanced cancers, are highly burdensome in terms of their symptoms and the concept of being on call, whether you're a patient or a caregiver, and the burden that it has, I think will resonate with a lot of us, that it's always in the back of our mind on what if X, Y or Z were to happen? In the FOCUS4-N trial, a randomized trial from the UK, investigators assessed whether taking a treatment holiday for maintenance therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer would have a detrimental effect on progression free survival, overall survival, tolerability and toxicity. It looks like the study found that these decisions regarding maintenance therapy should be individualized, but there were not major differences in outcome. Can you comment on this and what applications that has for us in the clinic?  Dr. Arjun Gupta: Sure. But before diving into the FOCUS4-N clinical trial, I just wanted to share a story from the clinic yesterday. It happened in my clinic yesterday, but I'm sure it happens to thousands of patients across the world every single day. So it was the first visit for a patient with stage 4 colon cancer, and they had polymetastatic disease with disease in the lungs and the liver, no actionable biomarkers, and so very likely to be incurable. And so we discussed the usual port and palliative care appointments and chemotherapy backbone, and doing this every 2 weeks, and then doing scans after 4 to 6 doses of chemo to see how the cancer has responded. And then the patient looks up and asks that question, “Okay. So when does this end? When are we done? Do I need to do this forever and the rest of my life?” These are just such innocent and hopeful questions, because the truth is, there is no established end date. But I shared this story that right off the bat, people are looking for breaks. They've not even started chemo, they've not experienced physical or financial or time toxicity, but just psychologically, being on chemo long-term or forever is a very, very hard adjustment.  And so it's in this context that we should look at the FOCUS4-N clinical trial, which was a sub- study of a larger umbrella trial investigating whether continuing on maintenance chemo with oral capecitabine versus taking a treatment break from chemo affected the progression-free survival in people with metastatic colorectal cancer who had disease control after 4 to 6 months of upfront chemotherapy. So they randomized approximately 250 people. These people had largely been treated with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI. Most did not receive a biologic, and approximately half had partial response and half had stable disease. And then they did scans on these patients every two months or so. And the primary endpoint was progression free survival. The median PFS was approximately 4 months in the capecitabine arm and 2 months in the no treatment arm. Of course, as expected, side effects were higher in the capecitabine arm. But impressively, the overall survival was not different between these two arms. So what we're seeing here is that after this period of 4 to 6 months of intensive chemo, if we take a chemo break versus we get some oral chemotherapy, it may affect how quickly the cancer grows on scans, but it maybe does not affect how long patients live.  Now, how do these data apply for an individual patient? Now, these are incredibly nuanced and personal decisions and patients can and should choose what aligns best with their values. In some work done by Dr. Mike Brundage and colleagues in Canada, they asked 100 people with advanced cancer to consider hypothetical scenarios where a new treatment did not increase the overall survival, but potentially increased the progression free survival at the cost of some physical and other toxicities. And then they asked patients if and what PFS thresholds they would accept for this treatment. And around half of patients said no matter how big the PFS is, we do not want to accept the treatment because it causes some toxicity if I'm not going to live longer. Around a quarter of patients said that if the drug elongated progression free survival by three to six months, I would take it, because that's valuable to me even if I don't live longer. But surprisingly, 1 in 6 patients said that they would accept a treatment with no PFS benefit and no overall survival benefit, even at the cost of side effects. And there was a spectrum of reasons for these preferences that they maybe had the battle narrative that “I want to be a fighter, and I don't want to have any regrets,” just showing how complex people's attitudes and values can be. So the point is that continuing on maintenance treatment versus not doing it is not wrong. The point is we often don't even have these data to offer treatment breaks to patients so that they can make decisions that align with their goals.  So I think that's the biggest takeaway from the FOCUS4-N trial for me is that we have some hard data now to guide patients [FOCUS4-N Editorial]. Now, strictly speaking, when I'm talking to a patient about these data, doing oral capecitabine in 3-week cycles may not feel like much. It's perhaps a visit every 3 weeks for blood work and for meeting someone from the oncology team. There are no IV drugs given. If one does well, this might literally be one visit every 3 weeks. But we have to consider that things rarely go as smoothly as we plan them to. For someone living 100 miles away and having diarrhea and needing IV fluids, they may require 3 to 4 clinic visits for labs and monitoring.  In the FOCUS4-N trial, 50% of patients on capecitabine had at least one treatment delay, denoting some toxicity. In a different but similar CAIRO3 clinical trial that tested capecitabine and bevacizumab, 10% of patients had to discontinue treatment due to toxicity. And so it's important to remember that what might seem a simple and low burden to us may be very burdensome to patients. In some work that we've done ourselves [published in The Oncologist], even a single simple appointment to a clinic, such as a lab test, often ends up taking patients hours and hours. So I think it's all of this that we have to consider when we present these data to patients.  Dr. Shaalan Beg: You've talked about the FOCUS4-N trial, you mentioned the CAIRO3 study as well. How do you see this playing in the clinic? Somebody may be looking to attend a child's wedding or a notable birthday or a trip with the family, and you have the data from these trials supporting you. What are the patient factors in terms of their disease factors, patient factors that you think of when you recommend such a treatment break to a patient? Or, let me flip that over. Who would be a patient that you would be uncomfortable offering a treatment break for with metastatic colorectal cancer?  Dr. Arjun Gupta: Yes, I think disease characteristics are a crucial consideration when we consider who we're even offering these treatment breaks to. I think, number one, is the overall disease burden, and if there's any critical visceral disease and how that's responded and how much it's responded to the upfront chemotherapy induction. I think patients where we're worried about having several sites of bulky disease, some that have not responded as well, I think we have to be very, very careful considering complete chemotherapy breaks. In the FOCUS4-N trial, in subgroup analysis, patients who had stable disease tended to not benefit as much from the chemotherapy break, perhaps indicating that it's really people whose disease is responding, who are doing well, who don't have as much disease burden, who may be better served by these treatment breaks. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Fantastic. I think that provides very good direction for our listeners on how they can apply the results of these trials in their clinic.  So we've talked about treatment breaks as a way to give people their time back and to reduce time toxicity. What are other treatment strategies that you have seen deployed to reduce the burden of receiving cancer treatments in general? Dr. Arjun Gupta: You specifically asked about treatment strategies, so I'll start with that before moving to more broad interventions. We actually interviewed patients and care partners to ask them this question, and one of the things that they said was having prospective information from their oncology care team just about what my expected burden was going to be. So I think people recognize that they need oncology care and the clinicians are trying to help them and it's a broken system, but just knowing that 1 in 4 days will be spent with health care contact or not, or you will spend two hours arguing on the phone with a payer, for example, preparing and supporting people for these burdens is very important. There are obviously some alternative treatment schedules. Certain chemotherapies can be given less frequently now. So if you look at cetuximab in GI cancers, for example, when the initial trials were done, it was given every week, but now we more and more use it every two weeks. And it might not seem like much, but it can open up an entire week for a patient when they can think that I don't need to go in this week at all. So these are just some minor adjustments that we can make in the clinic.  But patients often highlight things that may perhaps not be in the direct control of the oncologist, but in the direct control of us as an oncology community. And perhaps the most frequently cited suggestion was having more care coordination and navigation services. So patients really requested more flexibility in the site of care: “Can I come closer to home?'' In the timing of their care, ‘'Can I come in at 2:00 PM after I get childcare instead of coming in at 9:00 AM?” They really requested cluster scheduling or having appointments on the same day, if possible, instead of taking up Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, coming in so many times. And all of this could potentially be achieved by having a designated care coordinator, someone working directly with the patient and their care partner. And then some patients also highlighted the benefits of telemedicine and home-based care, where they were able to be home more.  But we have to also recognize that those things are not universally good and often can increase burdens on the patients and care partners. Also, I wanted to highlight some feedback we received from oncology clinicians. We asked a variety of oncology clinicians, including nurses, APPs, physicians, schedulers, and social workers, what they thought were the causes of patients' time burden. You'll be surprised to hear that when they started talking about patients' time burdens, they slowly started to talk about their own time burdens. And they said, ‘‘We really want to help people, but we're just doing prior authorization and spending hours on the electronic medical record. And please fix my own time toxicity, and I will fix the patients' time toxicity,” which I thought was very profound because I think everybody who goes into medicine goes into it for the right reasons, and we end up not providing perfect care, not because of us, but because of the system. I take this as a very, very positive sign and as a hope for change. Dr. Shaalan Beg: What inspired you to focus on this topic and your research?  Dr. Arjun Gupta: So I personally just hate waiting at the doctor's office. But yes, it's also been wise mentors, including you, Shaalan, during residency and fellowship, who always told me to keep my ear to the ground and listen to patients. And in full disclosure, time toxicity, and what we've done with it recently, it's nothing new. It's been around for decades. And I think our research group has just sort of named it and shamed it, and now more and more people are starting to think about it.   But I can point to two specific instances that I think of. One was when I was starting fellowship in 2018, I read a piece by Dr. Karen Daily in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, where she quoted Henry Thoreau and said, “The price of anything is the amount of life, or time, that you exchange for it.” And it really struck a chord with me, entering the oncology discipline and seeing what people with cancer go through.   And then the second instance is, I remember my granddad, who was perhaps the most formative person in my life. We were very, very close. And when I was about to enter medical school, he was undergoing chemotherapy for lymphoma. The image that's imprinted in my head is of him putting ketchup on gulab jamun. And I can see Shaalan salivating. But for the listeners who may not know, gulab jamun is an Indian sweet made out of milk, flour, sugar, ghee, molded into balls, deep fried and then served in sugar syrup. And my granddad could not taste anything. He could not taste gulab jamun. All he could taste was ketchup. And so he would put ketchup on everything. And at his oncologist visits when I would accompany him, they would discuss the good news about the cancer shrinking and there being a response, and he was happy, but he could just not taste his gulab jamuns. And it made me realize very early on that the tumor is not the only target.  Dr. Shaalan Beg: What a wonderful story. I think those are really hard to measure, quantify, and when patients do bring those stories into the clinic, I think you realize that you have a very special connection with those patients as well, and it does help us as clinicians give personalized advice. So thanks for sharing.  Arjun, thanks for sharing your valuable insights with us on the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. Dr. Arjun Gupta: Thanks so much for having me, Shaalan. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You'll find links to the studies discussed today in the transcript of the episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.   Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Find out more about today's speakers:  Dr. Arjun Gupta @guptaarjun90   Dr. Gupta's Research on Time Toxicity: ·      The Time Toxicity of Cancer Treatment, JCO ·      Consuming Patients' Days: Time Spent on Ambulatory Appointments by People With Cancer, The Oncologist ·      Evaluating the Time Toxicity of Cancer Treatment in the CCTG CO.17 Trial, JCO OP ·      Patients' considerations of time toxicity when assessing cancer treatments with marginal benefit, The Oncologist ·      Health Care Contact Days Experienced by Decedents With Advanced GI Cancer, JCO OP ·      Health Care Contact Days Among Older Cancer Survivors, JCO OP Dr. Shaalan Beg    @ShaalanBeg   Follow ASCO on social media:    @ASCO on Twitter   ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures:   Dr. Arjun Gupta: Employment (An Immediate Family Member): Genentech/Roche   Dr. Shaalan Beg:    Consulting or Advisory Role: Ispen, Cancer Commons, Foundation Medicine, Genmab/Seagen    Speakers' Bureau: Sirtex    Research Funding (An Immediate Family Member): ImmuneSensor Therapeutics    Research Funding (Institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tolero Pharmaceuticals, Delfi Diagnostics, Merck, Merck Serono, AstraZeneca/MedImmune

Drs. Hope Rugo, Diana Lam, Sheri Shen, and Mitchell Elliot discuss key strategies and emerging technology in early-stage breast cancer survivorship, including mitigating risk through lifestyle modification, surveillance for distant recurrence, and optimization of breast imaging. TRANSCRIPT  Dr. Hope Rugo: Hello, I'm Dr. Hope Rugo, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm a professor of medicine and director of breast oncology and clinical trials education at the University of California San Francisco's Comprehensive Cancer Center. I'm also an associate editor of the ASCO Educational Book.   There are currently about 4 million breast cancer survivors in the United States, according to the American Cancer Society, and this number is expected to rise as more women are being diagnosed at early stages of this disease, thanks to advances in early detection and the delivery of more effective adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment leading to successful outcomes.  In today's episode, we'll be discussing current and emerging clinical strategies for the survivorship period, focusing on a multidisciplinary approach. Joining me for this discussion are Drs. Mitchell Elliott, Sherry Shen, and Diana Lam, who co-authored, along with others, a recently published article in the 2024 ASCO Educational Book titled, “Enhancing Early-Stage Breast Cancer Survivorship: Evidence-Based Strategies, Surveillance Testing, and Imaging Guidelines.”  They also addressed this topic in an Education Session presented at the recent ASCO Annual Meeting. Dr. Elliott is a drug development fellow and clinician scientist trainee at the Princess Margaret Cancer Center in Toronto, Canada. Dr. Sherry Shen is a breast oncologist and assistant attending at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Dr. Diana Lam is a breast radiologist and associate professor at the University of Washington Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  It's great to have you all on the podcast today. Thank you for being here. Dr. Mitchell Elliott: Thank you so much.  Dr. Sherry Shen: Thank you.  Dr. Hope Rugo: Let's go into the meat of the article now and try to provide some interesting answers to questions that I think come up for clinicians all the time in practice. Your article points out that addressing the challenges in early-stage breast cancer survivorship requires a comprehensive, patient-centered approach, focusing on mitigating risk through lifestyle modification, surveillance for distant recurrence, and optimization of breast imaging.   Dr. Shen, surveillance can facilitate the early detection of recurrence, but ultimately the goal is to prevent recurrence. Lifestyle modifications are a key component of survivorship care, and there are many interventions in this context. Could you summarize the best approaches for mitigating risk of breast cancer recurrence through lifestyle modification and how we might accomplish that in clinical practice? Dr. Sherry Shen: Absolutely. This is a question that we get asked a lot by our breast cancer patients who are so interested in what changes they can make within their lifestyle to improve their breast cancer outcomes. I always tell them that there are three main things, three main lifestyle factors that can improve their breast cancer outcomes.  Firstly, enough physical activity. So the threshold for physical activity seems to be around 150 minutes of a moderately vigorous level per week. So moderately vigorous means something that gets the heart rate up, like walking quickly on rolling hills, for example. Or patients can do a vigorous level of physical activity for at least 75 minutes per week. Vigorous meaning playing a sport, swimming, for example, running, something that really gets the heart rate up.   The second really important lifestyle modification is limiting alcohol use. Keeping alcohol to less than 4 to 7 drinks per week is particularly important for breast cancer outcomes, especially in women who are postmenopausal and have hormone receptor positive diseases. That's where the strongest connection is seen. Lastly, maintaining a healthy weight. We know that women who gain more than 5% to 10% of their diagnosis body weight have a higher risk of breast cancer recurrence and worse breast cancer outcomes. That, of course, is easier said than done, and it's primarily through dietary modifications.  I always tell women that in terms of specific things in the diet, it's really hard to study at a population level because diets vary so much between patients. But what is really important is consuming a plant-forward whole foods diet that prioritizes nutrients and the quality of the diet. A little bit more specifically, it's important to limit the amount of red and processed meats in the diet, really limit the amount of sugar sweetened beverages, ideally to cut that out of the diet entirely, and to consume an appropriate amount of dietary fiber in the range of 20 to 30 grams per day. Those are more specific things that have been associated with breast cancer outcomes.  Dr. Hope Rugo: This is such helpful, practical information for clinicians and for patients. Thank you.  But let's move on to another area, surveillance testing for distant recurrence, an area of great interest, in fact highlighted in a special session at ASCO 2024. In clinic, we've seen that many cancer survivors expressed surprise at the less intensive approach to surveillance testing for recurrence, with the whole idea that if you detected it earlier, the outcome would be better. But it does raise an important question. What is the optimal strategy for monitoring for recurrence? And importantly, can early detection through surveillance testing impact outcome?   Dr. Elliot, your research has focused on ctDNA surveillance and the evolving role of minimal residual disease, or MRD. Can you comment on the current surveillance guidelines for distant recurrence, and then, how we really define true MRD?  Dr. Mitchell Elliott: Those are excellent questions, and I think leaving that Education Session at ASCO left us with even more questions than answers with the current role of MRD in this setting. I think a lot of this comes from wanting to help patients and trying to identify the patients at highest risk of cancer recurrence, with the goal of intervening with effective targeted therapy to prevent metastatic relapse.  Current international guidelines in the United States done by ASCO and the NCCN, as well as ESMO guidelines in Europe and even our local Canadian guidelines, do not suggest that patients undergo routine screening in asymptomatic individuals, whether it be blood work or routine radiographic imaging, as there were some studies that were done in the late 1990s and early 2000s that didn't actually show benefit and actually maybe favored a little bit of harm in these situations. So these recommendations are based on these initial studies. However, we know that in the last 10, 15 years, even 20 years, that breast cancer and the landscape of breast cancer has changed significantly with the introduction of our typical standard classification of breast cancer, the emergence of HER2 positive breast cancer, and thus triple negative breast cancer, which was not actually routine standard testing at the time of these studies, and also the most effective therapies we have to date, including immunotherapy, HER2 targeted therapy and the advent of antibody drug conjugates. We're at prime time right now to potentially revisit this question, but the question is, do we have the right technology to do so? And this is where the circulating tumor DNA has really emerged as a potential option, given its minimally invasive opportunity with a standard blood test to actually identify tumor specific DNA that is highly predictive of distant metastatic recurrence or patient recurrence in general.   The evolving role – we still have a lot of questions in this setting. There have been a lot of retrospective analyses of cohort studies and clinical trials that have shown that modern fit for purpose MRD based tests actually have a high positive predictive value at identifying patients with imminent risk of breast cancer recurrence. The most important thing in this setting is that there are different fit for purpose tests. The initial ctDNA assays were actually genotyping based assays, which look for the presence of mutations in the blood. But we know that the sensitivity of these assays is quite challenging at the level of ctDNA required to actually diagnose patients with very small amounts of residual disease. So the fit for purpose MRD assays are now emerging on the market. And we have several that are in clinical development, several that are in research development, but the high specificity in the setting is very important, which we're seeing some evolving and emerging technologies in this setting. We really don't have the data about if these interventions, so if we were to effectively deploy these MRD based ctDNA assays prospectively in patients, if they will actually improve patient outcomes, and how do we correct and address lead time bias, which might potentially affect study results?  Also, the important thing to think about in this setting is if we are able to find something, we also should have an effective therapy to actually intervene for patients, because the outcome in these trials will actually be dependent not only on identifying early breast cancer occurrence, but also delivering the best targeted intervention for that individual patient, which currently we don't understand fully.   Another really interesting thing is there was a trial, the ZEST trial, as many of our listeners may know, that was randomizing patients with patients with ctDNA detected in the adjuvant setting were randomized through either intervention or standard follow up. And going forward, is it actually an opportunity, or is it possible to actually randomize patients knowing that they have a near 100% likelihood of breast cancer recurrence to observation? So these are several ongoing questions that we have to address as we move forward to deploying this technology in the clinical space.  Dr. Hope Rugo: Really fascinating, and thanks for sharing that. I think really broad and helpful information on these ctDNA [assays] and also our surveillance guidelines, which I think really suggests that you only do surveillance for cause, other than looking for local recurrence and new cancers with breast imaging. So it is really an interesting time where we're seeing evolving technologies and evolving understanding of how we can best do this kind of testing when there are so many different assays out there. I think it's going to take a little while. And also understanding, as you pointed out, trying to target treatments when patients have emerging ctDNA to mutations. And we just have no idea yet if we're going to ultimately change outcomes. This is really helpful, and I think we'll give people a good understanding of where to think about this right now, what to look for in the future.  Now, of course, it's a nice segue into the idea of breast imaging for early breast cancer survivors because that's where we do have data. Dr. Lam, let's talk about how we optimize breast imaging in early-stage breast cancer survivors, because there's such a wide variation in breast cancer imaging survival protocols between different centers and different countries. And of course, here our group is representing two countries and really a broad geographic area. So some of the variations are when to do imaging in terms of frequency, when to start imaging and what kind of examination to do, screening versus diagnostic, MRI versus mammogram. And of course, there are some emerging imaging techniques as well. Could you tell us a little bit about the variation in imaging surveillance protocols in survivors, and the challenges and what you recommend?  Dr. Diana Lam: First off, I want to say that surveillance mammography saves lives and annual intervals are uniformly recommended among both national and international guidelines. However, we know that in practice there are variations in imaging surveillance protocols, with approximately 40% of sites performing imaging at more frequent or six-month intervals for at least one to two years. In addition, there's variation in what type of mammogram someone gets in terms of the indication. They might be getting initial diagnostic mammograms for a short period of time or screening mammograms. However, overall, there is limited evidence in improved outcomes in women getting a diagnostic versus a screening exam for asymptomatic surveillance. In addition, there is limited evidence in increased frequency of surveillance, for example, every six months versus one year.  The real difference between a screen and a diagnostic mammogram, if someone is asymptomatic in the surveillance population, primarily has to do with workflow. For screening examinations, the imaging is generally viewed after a patient leaves the facility, and it might actually take days, maybe even weeks, for the results to be delivered to the patient. In addition, if more imaging is needed, the patient will need to return back to the facility, which does diagnostic imaging work for us to work up this finding. And this practice approach causes diagnostic delays in care. It also disproportionately affects Black and Hispanic women. For diagnostic mammography surveillance, there's generally real time interpretation with immediate results. However, there are both access and scheduling limitations, as not all facilities actually perform these types of examinations. There may also be out of pocket costs which are increased due to the diagnostic indication of this exam.  So  what we found, which is an approach that can aid in minimizing patient costs and decreasing these health disparities, is to provide immediate interpretations of these screening mammography surveillance exams, or so-called online screens where diagnostic workup and potential biopsy can be performed on the same day. Dr. Hope Rugo: This is all very interesting, but what do we tell our patients? How do we, as oncologists, decide on how frequently to get mammograms? Should we be getting diagnostic or screening? And do we sequence MRI with mammograms for everybody or just for certain patients? And then some patients will say, “Well, my doctor does an ultrasound to mammogram.” We don't do that for screening. When do you recommend that? Dr. Diana Lam: We do know that compared to people without a personal history of breast cancer, surveillance mammography is actually less sensitive. It's only about 70% versus 87% or so percent sensitive with over four times more interval cancers or cancers diagnosed after a negative surveillance mammogram compared to the general screening population without a personal history of breast cancer. In addition, about 35% of invasive second breast cancers are actually interval cancers or those not detected by surveillance mammography. However, there is currently no guideline consensus on supplemental breast imaging or additional imaging beyond surveillance mammography. Contrast-enhanced breast MRI is most often recommended, particularly for patients who are already at high risk for breast cancer, such as those with genetic mutations, or patients who have had primary breast cancer diagnosed at a younger age to less than 50 years old, or those patients who have dense breast tissue on mammography.  There is a question about whole breast ultrasound and this is generally not specified or recommended unless the patient is unable to undergo breast MRI. This is primarily due to the number of false positive examinations or findings that are seen that do not amount to breast cancer. We do have the opportunity here to tailor surveillance imaging by selecting people who are at high risk for interval second breast cancers in order to decrease harms and improve patient outcomes. We know that there are a number of factors such as primary breast cancer subtype which affects second breast cancer risk. We know that women who have ER negative and/or hormonal negative breast cancers have significantly higher recurrence rates within the five years of treatment with no significant difference after that 5 years. We also know that there are certain factors such as imaging factors where patients are more likely to develop an interval second cancer with mammography surveillance only. And these are factors such as if their primary breast cancer was hormone negative, if they had an interval presentation to start, or if they had breast conservation without radiation therapy. So, in terms of the future of local breast imaging surveillance, this can be improved with upfront risk prediction and stratification based on the patient, primary breast cancer and treatment factors, as well as looking at imaging test performance to optimally guide the modality and frequency of surveillance imaging.  Dr. Hope Rugo: Really interesting.   Well, thank you all three of you for sharing your valuable insights. This has been so interesting and a great addition to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I would encourage everyone to actually read the article as well because there's some really great tables and interesting information there that of course we don't have time to cover, but thank you, all three of you.  Dr. Diana Lam: Thank you. Dr. Mitchell Elliott: Thank you for having us. Dr. Hope Rugo: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find a link to the article that you can read and look at and cut out the tables discussed today in the transcript of this episode. I encourage all of our listeners also to check out the 2024 ASCO Educational Book where there is an incredible wealth of useful information. Finally, if you value the insights that you've heard today and here on ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks again.   Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinion of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Follow today's speakers:   Dr. Hope Rugo   @hoperugo   @MitchElliott18 Dr. Sherry Shen @SherryShenMD    Follow ASCO on social media:       @ASCO on Twitter     ASCO on Facebook     ASCO on LinkedIn        Disclosures:      Dr. Hope Rugo:    Honoraria: Mylan/Viatris, Chugai Pharma Consulting or Advisory Role: Napo Pharmaceuticals, Puma Biotechnology, Sanofi Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Hoffmann-LaRoche AG/Genentech, Inc., Stemline Therapeutics, Ambryx   Dr. Diana Lam: No relationships to disclose   Dr. Sherry Shen: Honoraria: MJH Life Sciences Research Funding (Inst.): Merck, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals   Dr. Mitchell Elliott:  No relationships to disclose

Dr. Nathan Pennell and Dr. Christopher Booth discuss Common Sense Oncology, a global initiative that aims to advance patient-centered, equitable care and improve access to treatments that provide meaningful outcomes. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Nate Pennell: Hello. I'm Dr. Nate Pennell, your guest host today for the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm the co-director of the Cleveland Clinic Lung Cancer Program and vice chair of clinical research at the Taussig Cancer Center, and I also serve as the editor-in-chief of the ASCO Educational Book. My guest today is Dr. Christopher Booth, a professor of oncology and health sciences at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, where he also serves as the director of the Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology. He joins me today to discuss his recently published article in the 2024 ASCO Educational Book titled, “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes that Matter.” Dr. Booth also addressed this topic during a joint ASCO/European Cancer Organization session at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting.   Dr. Booth, welcome. Thanks for joining me. Dr. Christopher Booth: Thanks for inviting me here, and I look forward to our conversation. Dr. Nate Pennell: In your article in the Educational Book, and again, thank you so much to you and your co-authors for writing that for us, and during your presentation at the ASCO Annual Meeting, I think your topic really resonated with a lot of people. You explained that the essence of oncology is delivering compassionate care, and I really was struck by the statement, “the treatments need to provide meaningful care, meaningful improvements in outcomes that matter regardless of where the patients live.” Can you just tell us what exactly is Common Sense Oncology? What's your vision for what it can do to help address some of our growing challenges today?  Dr. Christopher Booth: Thanks, Nate. So, the Common Sense Oncology initiative was launched just over a year ago, and it really was a grassroots gathering of clinicians, policymakers, academics, as well as patients and patient advocates who recognize that there's many things we do well in the current cancer care system, but there's also areas that we can improve. And so it was created as a space for us to advocate for greater access for the things that we know really help people, but also to create a space where we can be willing to have some tough conversations and some humility and look within our field at some of the things that maybe aren't working as well as they should, and try to be constructive and not just be critics of the system, but actually be solution-focused and to try to move things forward. The Common Sense Oncology initiative, which has really taken off over the last year, really brings together people from all health systems who care deeply about people and their families who are with cancer. And our mission is that cancer care systems deliver treatments that have outcomes that matter to patients. And the vision is that, as you stated in your introduction, regardless of where someone lives, they have access to those cancer treatments which really do make a difference in their lives.  Dr. Nate Pennell: That certainly sounds like something everyone should be behind. Before we talk about some of what Common Sense Oncology may be doing to help address some of the inequities in cancer care, one of the challenges that is addressed in your paper is the focus on modern clinical trials and perhaps some of the mistakes that we're making in how they are designed. In many ways, we sort of live in a golden age of clinical trials with biomarker driven treatments, which can be incredibly effective in small populations of people, sometimes at great expense. So, focusing on our modern clinical trials, some of the criticisms that have arisen are that perhaps the endpoints that are being designed really aren't ones that are meaningful for patients, or that the gains that they're trying to look for in these trials may not be particularly meaningful. So, talk a little bit about that, if you might.  Dr. Christopher Booth One day, I might write a book called Paradoxes in Cancer Care. But there's a number of these things I think about. I'll start, Nate, in response to your question by talking about something I think of called the ‘three buckets paradox.' The three buckets paradox, I think, reflects a communication failure on the part of our field whereby if a patient or member of the public only reads the newspapers about cancer, they might wonder why we even have cancer hospitals and why Dr. Pennell and Dr. Booth even have a job, because everything we're doing is curing cancer. But we know the reality is different. And so, I conceptualize cancer treatments as going into three different buckets. We have the red bucket, which are those treatments, which really are transformational, and I've been working in oncology for 20 years now and we've seen a number of these treatments. They markedly increase cure rates or help people live for many, many months or extra years of life. And we have those treatments; they're almost out of a science fiction movie. The green bucket is a series of treatments. They're not perhaps transformational, but they're very, very good. They offer substantial benefits to our patients, and we have quite a few of those.  The concern that I think many of us recognize, and just to state emphatically that the problems that CSO is thinking about are not new problems; I think every oncologist has struggled with these things throughout each of our own careers. The concern is the third bucket, which includes many of our newer treatments, some of which, of course, are transformational. But many of the new treatments fall into this bucket, which have important side effects. They have major financial toxicity for patients' families and the system. They have time toxicity, especially in the last year of life. And the reality is most of these new treatments, either there's no proven benefit they help people live longer or better lives, or if they do, it's measured in a number of weeks. I think we need to reconcile the fact that we need to maybe speak honestly about some of the challenges in our field to recognize there's probably too many treatments going into that last bucket, and we need to push harder in the research ecosystem and the policy space to ensure we have more treatments in the first two buckets and that they remain widely available to everyone.  So, to get to the specific issues you raised in your question, Nate, some of the effect sizes and the endpoints we're choosing are problematic, I think. We have many, many examples of incredible clinical trials and new treatments that really make a difference for the lives of our patients. I want to state emphatically that the RCT remains the best tool we have to identify new treatments for patients of tomorrow, and any challenges with clinical trials, actually, it's not the fault of the RCT; these are self-inflicted by us who design, interpret, and act on clinical trials. And so the use of surrogate endpoints is a major issue in our field. And I just want to also state emphatically that there are circumstances where surrogate endpoints make a lot of sense and we should be using them. The problem is, I think with our excitement to get treatment answers more quickly, we've really embraced surrogate endpoints in a very, very rapid way. And in fact, I shouldn't even refer to them as surrogate endpoints. Maybe we should use the term alternative endpoints because in many cases they have been found to not be valid surrogates for those things which we know matter to patients: overall survival and quality of life. So certainly, there's a place for surrogate endpoints. I think we live in an era now where the majority of clinical trials are being designed to detect improvements in progression-free survival rather than overall survival. So historically, most clinical trials were being launched to see if we could help people live longer or feel better.  Now, the default endpoint is progression-free survival, which largely is based on tumor measurements on a CAT scan. And certainly, there are circumstances where those tumor measurements do relate to how someone feels or how long they live, but in most circumstances, that's not the case. I think we need to take a step back and just see the big picture here about where it is that we're going, and how can we raise the bar and ensure that we're identifying treatments that really offer meaningful gains to patients. Because we have to be honest about the fact that the patients and families are the ones who need to live through the side effects, the time toxicity and financial toxicity of these treatments. So, this is about maybe raising the bar and aiming a bit higher than we currently are.  Dr. Nate Pennell: And it looks like CSO basically is putting together teams around evidence generation, evidence interpretation and evidence communication that I guess, is trying to advocate and influence this? Dr. Christopher Booth: Yeah. So, when we launched this initiative, which now is this large global coalition of people, we wanted it to be really solution focused. So, our workstream is oriented around trying to improve how we generate evidence, how we interpret evidence, and how we communicate evidence. So, the evidence generation workstream is being led by a series of leading clinical trialists from all over the world, together with patients and patient advocates who are looking at how we can come up with a framework and principles to design, perhaps a more thoughtful approach to the design, reporting, and conduct of clinical trials. So that's kind of a clinical trials workstream. And I should mention all of these project teams are populated by clinicians, academics, members of the public, as well as patient and patient advocates who, in some cases, are co-leaders of the workstreams.  The evidence interpretation workstream is an educational bucket being led by clinicians and educators, together with patients, to see how we can improve the skill set of the next generation of oncologists to be better equipped in skills and epidemiology, critical appraisal, and critical thinking, so we can better dissect trials which have been well designed from those which might have some limitations, identify those treatments which have very substantial gains from those which are perhaps more marginal. And then the third workstream relates to how we communicate evidence. And this is communication broadly, how we talk about these very complex and nuanced issues at the bedside between oncologist and patient. But how we talk more broadly in society, through the media, with public and policy makers, about some of the challenges in cancer care, recognizing, of course, that no one individual, group or person is going to have the answer for what treatments matter for any specific patient. This is going to vary by every patient with their unique values, preferences and goals in life. But we think we can do a better job of talking about these issues and empowering patients to have the information they need so they can make the treatments that match their own goals and wishes.  Dr. Nate Pennell: Oh, thank you. Another thing that I was interested in in your paper, and when we talk about value and whether these endpoints that are being released for drugs that become approved are meaningful to patients, the other aspect of value is, of course, the cost. And we know that basically every new drug that gets approved, just an astronomical cost these days, which doesn't often factor into whether to approve them. It doesn't often factor into a doctor's decision about whether to use them. Can you talk a little bit about this? And is cost of drugs something that CSO is interested in addressing, or is that more of just a part of the equation in determining value of these? Dr. Christopher Booth: No, I think it's a really important point. So the value construct, I'm not an economist, so I think about this as a simple Canadian chemotherapy doctor would, which is the interface of what you get - so the magnitude of benefits, that's the endpoint, and the effect size - relative to the downsides, the cost, the clinical toxicity, time toxicity, and financial toxicity. So historically, I mean, I think, Nate, you and I will remember maybe 10 or 15 years ago when this really came on the scene, all the conversations focused on the denominator, the cost of cancer medicines, which became astronomical over the last 10 or 20 years. And we've learned a few things about that over time, and I'll get to that in a moment in reference to your question. But I think as individual clinicians or investigators, or even people writing guidelines, we don't have a lot of ability to influence the price of cancer medicines, although I think we still need to speak out about these prices, which are largely unjustified. I'll come back to that. But where I think there's growing interest, and we've seen this in the last five years, is the numerator in that value construct, which is the magnitude of benefit, the endpoint, the effect size. And I think that's where we actually have much more ability to influence. We are the doctors who make treatment recommendations, the experts who write guidelines, the investigators who design trials and so I think we need to take a bit more ownership when it comes to this magnitude of benefit construct. And that's where a lot of the work that Common Sense Oncology is doing rests.  But to answer your question about cost, this is a major problem. We've known that it's been shown by several groups that the price of a cancer medicine is not justified by the R and D cost, that's been shown over time. We also have a problem where the magnitude of benefit offered by that drug also has no bearing to the price. And so this speaks to the need to really, I think, undertake more rigorous health technology assessment and think very carefully about- you know every other economic model that you and I live in, Nate, if, you know, if we have a growing family, we need a larger apartment or house, we spend more money, we get a bigger house. If we want to keep up with our kids on their fast bicycles, we spend more money, we get a better bicycle. And when it comes to cancer medicines, we found that not only is there no relationship between how well the drug works and its price, our group and others have found, if anything, there's an inverse relationship, whereby the drugs with the smallest benefit have the largest price tag. And I don't think you need a PhD in economics to know that is an incredibly broken system. So, I think there's a lot that we need to talk about when it comes to cost. Common Sense Oncology cares deeply about this because it's a huge issue about health justice and global equity and access to cancer medicines. And I think we need to work on that. But we also can't forget about the numerator, which is, to what extent do these treatments help people? Dr. Nate Pennell: I know that every time I see one of these fabulous new presentations at ASCO Plenary or something like that, I just imagine many of the doctors and patients who live outside the U.S., maybe in low- and middle-income countries, who don't have the same access to basic oncology care and specialty oncology care that we do in Western countries, and what goes through their minds when they think about this. And so, I know that this is another big part of what CSO is doing, is thinking about global equity and access to cancer care. And so, can you tell me a little bit about how you're hoping to address that? Dr. Christopher Booth: Yeah. And so, you're right. I guess I'll tell you another Booth cancer paradox. I call this the cancer medicine paradox, which is, on the one hand, in many health systems, I think we'll recognize that there's often overutilization of cancer medicines that are toxic, expensive, and small benefits, especially in the last year of life. So, we have that kind of overutilization paradigm in some parts of the world, but we also have this paradox where we have massive underutilization of those treatments that we know actually have large benefits. And the tragic part of this is many of those treatments are old, generic drugs that actually should be very affordable. Some of this work comes out of myself and a number of my founding colleagues of Common Sense Oncology have a policy role with the World Health Organization Essential Medicine list. My interest in this started, I guess, many years ago when I had a sabbatical in India and lived and worked at a large government cancer hospital for a period of time. And so, from this WHO working group, we launched a project. It's been called the Desert Island study. It was called the Desert Island Project for reasons I'll tell you in a moment. But essentially it was a survey of 1,000 oncologists on the frontlines of care in 82 countries worldwide. And what we are interested in doing is in our role as an advisory group to the WHO Essential Medicine List, we come up with a list of those medicines which are really most important and should be provided in all health systems. And we were interested in going to the frontlines of care, leaving the boardroom of Geneva, and going to the frontlines of care and asking real doctors in the real world, “What medicines do you think are the most important for the patients that you look after?”   So, it was a survey. We asked a lot of demographic questions about their clinical practice and their health system, but we called it the Desert Island Project, because the core question of the survey was based on the thought experiment that you and I have done many times with friends at dinner parties. For example, if you're moving to a desert island and you could only take three books, what would those books be? If you're going to have dinner with any famous podcast host in the world other than Dr. Pennell, who would that person be? And so the thought experiment was, imagine your government has put you in charge of cancer care for your country. You can choose any cancer medicines you want that will be freely available for all cancers and all people in your country. Cost is not an issue, but you can only choose 10. You can only choose 10 of those medicines to take to the desert island to look after all the people in your country, what would those medicines be? And it's amazing; of those thousand oncologists, we found, first of all, remarkable convergence between doctors, regardless of where they work, whether it was a high-income country, middle-income country, lower-income country, the doctors were very pragmatic. When we looked at the drugs that went in that suitcase over and over again, the most common drugs were the good old fashioned cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs and hormone drugs we've been using for 20 or 30 years that we know have very, very large benefits, and in the modern era now should be very affordable because they've been off patent for many years.   In that list of medicines that went to the desert island, there also were some of our newer drugs that are new and they're very expensive. But they are those drugs that have very large benefits. And, of course, all of us would want access to those for our patients. So we found that the doctors are pretty pragmatic about which medicines if they're pushed to offer the largest benefit. But the next part of the question was, okay, you've told us which medicines you want to put in your suitcase to take to the desert island, please now tell us the reality in your health system to what extent can you deliver these medicines? And it was shocking. The vast majority of oncologists, a huge number of them, said they could not even provide doxorubicin or cisplatin without causing major financial toxicity for that patient and family. Even for trastuzumab, now available as a biosimilar, only 15% of oncologists globally said they could provide it universally to all women with breast cancer. Two thirds of oncologists said, “Look, I can give it, but I will catastrophically ruin that patient's family's finances for generations to come.” So, we have a big problem in the sense that we need to focus on those treatments which make a big difference and ensure that they're available to all patients who could benefit, while at the same time raise the bar so that the modern treatments that we're offering also have large benefits.  Dr. Nate Pennell: I think that's really eye opening, and I hope lots of people take away from this, that this is the reality for a huge number, potentially billions of people on the planet that don't have easy access to the same kinds of drugs. We're not even necessarily talking about the expensive drugs with the three-week DFS benefit, but ones that actually could be curing them of their breast cancer and their testicular cancer and their lymphomas, and they can't even get access to those, even though here we might say that they're inexpensive and relatively accessible. So how do we fix that? Maybe this is too big a question for a few minutes in a podcast, but I'm curious to see what CSO is doing to try to help.  Dr. Christopher Booth: Well, the challenges are substantial, and so that's why we've kind of created this group, because it's going to require kind of collective input, I think, of everyone in our field and beyond. And I also think, one of the reasons we've been overwhelmed with interest by the next generation, the young, the trainees, the young oncologists who are very interested in this, and I think they're recognizing that this might be an alternative place for them to put their energy, talent, as they build their own academic careers, is tackling some of these really, really tricky problems where the solutions are not immediately obvious. One thing I think, Nate, that's important is for us to talk about these things and recognize that there's a range of cancer treatments, and that this might help set better expectations for the patients and families when they walk into our cancer centers, let alone in the U.S. and Canada, but also globally. We've seen challenges with all of us as human beings are technophiles, we're drawn towards the new shiny targeted therapy or a robot or treatment in cancer care, and we've seen that play out somewhat tragically. Some of my friends and colleagues in LMICs have told stories where the Minister of Health is about to make a major investment in cancer care, but they want the shiny new monoclonal antibody, because that's perceived as being newer and better, when the reality is that that might add two months of PFS compared to other agents that are much, much- have much larger benefits and, of course, are much more affordable. And there's modeling where even just one of these new medicines, for one cancer, would wipe out the entire cancer medicine budget for that country. Yet we don't have tamoxifen, doxorubicin, cisplatin or even morphine for palliative care available. So, some of this is about socializing these issues, talking about these things that, again, these are not new problems. I think every oncologist worldwide has wrestled with these things, but just at least creating a space where we can talk honestly about this and work towards solutions.  Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah, I think even just having the framework and the awareness and getting people involved is going to make a big difference. And of course, the people who ultimately are impacted the most by this are the patients with cancer. One of the big aspects in your paper is talking about how patients and patient advocates are central to the CSO movement. So, tell me a little bit about how they became involved and what role they play in CSO. Dr. Christopher Booth: Yeah, so this has been a very intentional and deliberate part of the building of the Common Sense Oncology initiative. So this started with a planning meeting of- a very small planning meeting of 30 people in Kingston, here at Queen's University just over a year ago, with 30 people from 15 different countries, a mix of academics, clinicians, editors, and in that room were five or six patients and patient advocates from day 1, because we wanted to make sure that this is really all about their needs and creating a system that revolves around the outcomes that matter to patients and families. So since then, we've continued to engage broadly. We have a patient priorities project team. There's co-leadership there. One is a colleague and oncologist from New Zealand, but the other co-leader is a patient advocate from- a breast cancer patient advocate from the United States. And all of our project teams have patients and patient advocates as part of their membership. The Patient Priorities Team is working to design a patient charter to guide the design and implementation of clinical trials from the patient's perspective. And as part of that exercise we've been undertaking, we call the CSO speaking and listening tour, where we've had a series of webinars with patient advocacy groups from all over the world, where part of the webinar is us talking about the CSO mission vision, workstream and some of the challenges and solutions we see so that we can provide some education, but also get honest feedback from the front lines to learn kind of where we might be off, what we might be missing, what we should focus on. But then also, the second part of the webinar is about sharing this kind of draft patient charter and getting more broad input from patients and families about what it is they're looking for in a cancer system. And I can tell you that some of the most gratifying correspondence I've had since launching CSO, which has been essentially become my third full time job, is letters from patients and family members of former patients who have since deceased or active patients on treatment, who are saying how much they appreciate this work and how much they feel that oncology can perhaps do a better job talking about some of these things. And they've been giving us some very good ideas and suggestions that, in fact, I'm already incorporating into my clinical practice, because ultimately all of us came into this field to help people with cancer, and I think they can and should and are remaining the center of everything. Dr. Nate Pennell: I think, thankfully, that is a movement throughout medicine, certainly cancer medicine, that patients are becoming more involved much earlier in the process of designing trials. And hopefully that alone will help change the endpoints that we're building into these studies to make them much more meaningful.   So, people are going to read your paper, they're going to get excited, they're going to listen to this podcast, they're going to get even more excited about how they're going to change the world through a little more common sense. So how can they get involved? Is this something that you're open to people working with you? Are there other things people can do to try to help solve some of these frustrating problems?  Dr. Christopher Booth: Yeah, absolutely, Nate. So, we have a website at commonsenseoncology.org. Some of our co-leaders are very active on social media, so they can follow us through social media channels. If you go to our website, there is a membership button where people can join. There's no fee and we won't bombard you with too many emails. But what that has allowed us to do is build this network of people who have diverse interests and skill sets that we can then tap into various projects and workstreams where we could use the help and support. And members have access to things like virtual webinars, journal clubs, critical appraisal sessions, and they get a newsletter from us every two or three months about activities and about ideas and allow exchange of dialogue going back and forth. So certainly, we look forward to growing this initiative, and the challenges are large, but we think that with the collective input of stakeholders from around the world, we could make a difference in moving towards some solutions. Dr. Nate Pennell: And for our listeners, that is commonsenseoncology.org. You can go check this out and join if you are interested in learning more.  Chris, thanks so much for sharing your insights and for all of your work on addressing these complex challenges in cancer care. Dr. Christopher Booth: Thanks, Nate. Grateful for the interview and also for ASCO for giving us the opportunity in the Educational Book and at the Annual Meeting to talk about this work. Dr. Nate Pennell: Thank you. And I also want to thank our listeners for joining us today. You'll find links to the article discussed today, as well as Dr. Booth's presentation at the Annual Meeting, in the transcript of the episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you heard on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.   Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Find out more about today's speakers: Dr. Nathan Pennell @n8pennell Dr. Christopher Booth   Follow ASCO on social media:    @ASCO on Twitter ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn   Disclosures: Dr. Nathan Pennell: Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Cota Healthcare, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Viosera, Xencor, Mirati Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Sanofi/Regeneron Research Funding (Inst): Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, Loxo, Altor BioScience, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Jounce Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Heat Biologics, WindMIL, Sanofi    Dr. Christopher Booth: No relationships to disclose

Dr. Pedro Barata and Dr. Lillian Siu discuss recent advances in cancer vaccines and biomarkers, including the potential of the neoantigen and immune modulatory vaccines and the challenges surrounding cancer vaccine development. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Pedro Barata: Hello, I'm Dr. Pedro Barata, your guest host for the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm a GU medical oncologist at the University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center in Cleveland, Ohio, and an associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. I'm also an associate editor of the ASCO Educational Book. And today we'll be discussing a timely article that was recently published in the Educational Book titled, “State-Of-The-Art Advancements on Cancer Vaccines and Biomarkers.”   I'm delighted to welcome one of the article's co-authors and a world-renowned oncologist, Dr. Lillian Siu. She is a senior medical oncologist and director of the Phase 1 Program at the Princess Margaret Cancer Center and a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto.  Welcome, Dr. Siu. Dr. Lillian Siu: Thank you, Dr. Barata; it's great to be here. Dr. Pedro Barata: Wonderful. Dr. Siu will discuss new tools for cancer vaccine development, strategies for combating the immunosuppressive and tumor microenvironment. She will also address cancer vaccine guidelines and patient recruitment strategies to optimize patient selection and access to cancer vaccine trials. I should say that Dr. Siu and her co-authors also addressed this topic during an Education Session at the ASCO 2024 Annual Meeting.  Finally, our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  So again, Dr. Siu, great to be speaking with you today. I'm looking forward to our discussion.  Dr. Lillian Siu: Thank you, Dr. Barata. And before I begin, I want to acknowledge Dr. Jeffrey Weber and Dr. Inge Marie Svane, who both presented during the ASCO session you mentioned. They gave excellent presentations related to the topic of neoantigen vaccines and immune-modulatory vaccines, which we will talk about later. Dr. Pedro Barata: Wonderful. So let's get started. Cancer vaccines are among the most promising frontiers for breakthrough innovations and new strategies in the fight against cancer. The successes in vaccine development during the COVID-19 pandemic, I think, inspired further research in this area. Why do you think it's important that we harness these recent successes and technological advances to really accelerate progress in vaccine development? Dr. Lillian Siu: Absolutely. I think all of us who have lived through COVID really appreciated how important the COVID vaccine development was to all of us. It saved millions of lives. And I think we witnessed a paradigm change in drug development that none of us thought was possible, that we're able to actually bring a concept to a drug from bench to bedside within an extremely short time. That timeline is not something we would ever imagine to have happened, and it did. And I think it gives us hope that perhaps this is not just limited to the COVID vaccine; it's also extrapolatable to other therapeutics – that we can bring promising medicines to our patients in a really expedited timeline, obviously without compromising their safety.  We now know that cancer vaccines have entered a new, or maybe I should say, renewed era of promise. And it's holding promise on many fronts, Pedro, if I may. It's very exciting in the area of molecular residual disease. In other words, a setting where the cancer is treated definitively by surgery or radiation, plus adjuvant treatment. And we know some patients will relapse because we know they're at high risk. And now we also have different ways to detect these microscopic risks, such as by ctDNA, circulating tumor DNA, or biomarkers. And we know that having some therapeutic that can eradicate these cancers at such microscopic levels would be very attractive, especially with low toxicity, and I think cancer vaccine is such a candidate. And of course, we can even look further into the future of using such treatment in cancer prevention, especially in those with high risk of developing cancer, for example, those with hereditary syndromes like lynch syndrome. We're not there yet, but I think it holds that promise.   So I think, going back to your original question, if we can develop such a therapeutic that is showing promise in a very short period of time, it brings the timeline and the hope to a much shorter timeframe to really deliver to our patients in a very timely manner while safeguarding all the important parts, such as safety and tolerability. Dr. Pedro Barata: Wow, those are such important points. I couldn't agree with you, more. It's really exciting. As I think through this, and as I was reading through your piece, I was thinking it would be great if you could highlight some of the novel approaches to personalized neoantigen vaccine development that are driving progress in this space. Dr. Lillian Siu: Absolutely. And during the session, Dr. Weber spoke about the neoantigen vaccine, and he's a pioneer in this space. So I can only try to iterate some of the points he had delivered during his talk. Neoantigen is a very exciting space for immunologists because we know that tumors express these neoantigens. Many of these are unique antigens that are only expressed in tumors, so-called tumor specific antigens, that we can use as our targets, including vaccines, but not limited to vaccines. And with these altered sequences in DNA in different forms, they could be mutations and splice alterations, etc. We expect that we have modified proteins that are expressed by tumor cells, and these become targets for our drug development of vaccines. And now we can have very specific strategies, very sophisticated algorithms to figure out which neoantigens are more so called immunogenic, more likely to stimulate or activate the immune system, and they can be recognized by T cells. So leveraging this knowledge and technology, we have been able to develop especially mRNA vaccines that are deliverable to our patients through different mechanisms, for example, in lipopeptides, etc., so that we can deliver to the patients in a safe way, such that we can use it to deliver vaccines, such as in the MRD setting that I mentioned earlier, as well as in the advanced disease setting. So Dr. Weber, in his presentation, highlighted one of such vaccines that have been tested in a randomized controlled trial that is KEYNOTE-942, which randomized 157 patients to the mRNA vaccine plus pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. This is a vaccine against 34 mutated neoantigens, and it showed a significant difference in the recurrence free survival with a hazard ratio of 0.56. And if you look at the 18-month relapse free survival rate, it was 78.6% versus 62.2%. Obviously, these are still fairly early data and numbers are still small. I think we would definitely look forward to the randomized phase 3 study of neoantigen vaccine in melanoma and other cancers. Dr. Pedro Barata: No, absolutely. And I agree, it's really exciting. Dr. Weber did a fantastic job going through some of that data. So let me ask you Dr. Siu, as you think about this cancer vaccine field, what are the limitations that you'd highlight when you think about cancer vaccine development? What challenges do you encounter, obstacles do you encounter?  Dr. Lillian Siu: There are many, many potential challenges. And to some extent, that's probably why cancer vaccine development has been somewhat slow for the many decades until more recently. We know first of all; the target has to be recognized. So we need immunogenic targets. So I think a lot of the effort has been put into trying to understand which antigens expressed by cancer cells are immunogenic, able to activate the immune system. They're obviously assay based methods. You're going to try and see if you can ex vivo stimulate immune cells on dishes and models, etc. But we need to also develop in silico computerized algorithms, and now with AI, I think that makes it even more tangible and exciting that we can actually understand through a large number of neoantigens or other antigens, whether we can choose the ones that are most likely going to actually stimulate T cells to be activated. And I think that is one area that there is a lot of interest in development, how to really develop ways to select out the most attractive antigens.   I would also want to highlight that the platforms, which is how we deliver the vaccine, can also pose significant challenges. For example, vaccines can be delivered using peptide-based formulation, cell-based formulation, nucleic acids and viral vectors. For some of these formulations, for example, the peptides very often are restricted to HLA. They can be rapidly degraded in the body, such that they become not really visible to the T cells anymore. Some of the formulations can be very complex. For example, the cell-base; it may need to have cells isolated from patients, cultured, stored and transported to the site of delivery, which can be very complex. For some of the nucleic acid vaccines, they can have very low transfection efficiency. It could be at risk for also having, for example, DNA vaccines integrated into the host genome. And then lastly, there's also the immune suppressive environment in the TME, such that it does not really have the effect when you give it repeatedly. It becomes attenuated and no longer effective. So these are some of the challenges associated with cancer vaccines.  Dr. Pedro Barata: Thank you for that summary. I think it's really important for folks out there, including researchers getting into this field, to be aware of potential obstacles they might encounter.  So let me ask you the opposite question as we see more compelling preclinical and clinical data emerging in this field of vaccine development, what is really exciting you the most about the newest technologies that are shaping the future of cancer vaccines, in your opinion?  Dr. Lillian Siu: I think one I want to highlight is the immune-modulatory vaccine that Dr. Svane, Dr. Inge Marie Svane had presented during the presentation at ASCO. This is a completely different strategy from the neoantigen vaccine. It targets antigens in the tumor microenvironment. And we know that in the tumor microenvironment, we have tumor cells, we have immune cells, and there are many types of cell types, including, for example, macrophages, cancer associated fibroblasts, regulatory T cells, etc. And using these particular cell types, we know that we can really develop vaccines that can stimulate the body's immune system to attenuate, to downgrade some of the negative factors in the tumor microenvironment. And this is what Dr. Svane and her group is trying to do. For example, they have an IDO vaccine that is able to actually target these antigens in the tumor microenvironment, and by that, not just suppressing the negative forces, so to speak, but also activate T cells to help attack cancer cells. I think that's a very interesting area. Very early promise has been seen already in non-small cell lung cancer in early phase trials using the immune-modulatory vaccine.  But going back to your question, what kind of advances; I mentioned earlier about having novel ways to select our antigens that are most immunogenic. There are many algorithms that are being developed, and I think we can try and leverage that kind of knowledge from artificial intelligence, machine learning. So I think that's definitely very exciting. There are also new vaccine platforms coming out. For example, there's recent data using modification of peptides, so called amphiphile vaccines, that already show very early promise in colorectal cancer, microsatellite status, colorectal cancer, as well as in pancreatic cancer in the molecular residual disease setting, where these long peptide vaccines targeting KRAS mutants together with adjuvant oligonucleotide DNA, combined together, can actually be given to patients and reduce the chance of cancer relapse in patients with resected colorectal cancer, as well as pancreatic cancer, with endpoints such as ctDNA or biomarker being downregulated. I think that's a very exciting example. Another very exciting example is cell-based vaccines that are being developed in Europe by the NKI Netherlands Cancer Institute Group, where they are looking at plasmacytoid dendritic cells that are loaded with peptides from different tumor associated antigens and then given to patients, which, again, in non-small cell lung cancer, together with pembrolizumab, has yielded very high response rate. And we will almost certainly see more trials coming out using that particular platform with the dendritic cells. So that's just some of the examples of exciting things that are happening in the vaccine field. Dr. Pedro Barata: Thank you. I'm wondering if you can share with our listeners about what really are the existing guidelines for using these new tools for discovery, methods of treatment, and perhaps optimizing patient selection to access trials.  Dr. Lillian Siu: To be honest, the latest guideline that was published from the FDA that I can find is almost 13 years ago in 2011. So I think it is time for a new guidance, or at least a draft guidance, to give some additional support and guidance in terms of what to do with these new treatments from the FDA and perhaps other regulatory agencies as well. I think we're now entering a very exciting time that cancer vaccines are no longer an ineffective therapeutic. It is now showing evidence of efficacy, not just in the advanced setting, but also in the molecular residual disease setting. There're so many questions to be answered, like how to develop these trials in early disease; what's the end point? Can we incorporate them into the neoadjuvant setting, and if so, how do we give these drugs before surgery, and do we give them maintenance after surgery? I think guidance from the regulatory authorities would be extremely helpful and informative to guide academic groups as well as the pharmaceutical sector to develop these agents in the right way. Dr. Pedro Barata: Dr. Siu, this is a fantastic summary, and we certainly are on the cusp of a new dawn of discovery and development in cancer vaccines, and super interesting to hear from you talking about it. Before letting you go, do you have any final thoughts that you'd like to share with the listeners, with all of us about this topic? Dr. Lillian Siu: I think as a drug developer like you are, I'm extremely excited because we now have yet another way to leverage the host immunity as a cancer therapeutic, and it is going to be opening a new door to combination therapy because we can imagine combining these treatments with other immunotherapeutics such as bispecific molecules such as CAR Ts and even vaccine plus vaccine combination is feasible. That came up actually during the session as a question from the audience. Can we combine neoantigen vaccines and immune-modulatory vaccines together? And both of our speakers who presented felt that it was possible. Obviously, we have to understand the sequence question and the endpoints question, but the fact that it opens a new door to combinatorial therapy, not just with immunotherapeutics, but perhaps with other therapeutics as well, antibody drug conjugates, etc., really, I think, is very exciting for this field to become further explored.  I mentioned earlier in the podcast that the whole area of cancer prevention is something that we have not been tapping into for the last decade with vaccines because it has not been very effective. Viral vaccines, of course, HPV and other vaccines targeting viruses, but targeting cancer cells is not something we have been successful using vaccines to prevent cancer from developing. I think we would be very interested to see if this will become a reality in the next decade. I think we would start off with patients with high risk of developing cancers such as, as I mentioned earlier, those with lynch syndrome, those harboring BRCA alterations, for example. Can we use these vaccines to actually prevent the cancers from developing in such high-risk individuals? I think the field is definitely open to that consideration.  Dr. Pedro Barata: Definitely. And I'd like to thank you, Dr. Siu, for sharing these great insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Lillian Siu: Thank you so much for your time.  Dr. Pedro Barata: And thank you to all the listeners for your time today. You'll find a link to the article discussed today in the transcript of this episode, and I encourage you to check out the 2024 ASCO Educational Book. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. So again, thank you so much for your time and see you soon.   Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Follow today's speakers:  Dr. Pedro Barata  @PBarataMD  Dr. Lillian Siu  @lillian_siu   Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on Twitter ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn   Disclosures:    Dr. Pedro Barata: Honoraria: UroToday  Consulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Eisai, Caris Life Sciences, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, AVEO, Dendreon  Speakers' Bureau (Inst): Caris Life Sciences, Bayer, Pfizer/Astellas  Research Funding (Inst.): Blueearth, AVEO, Pfizer, Merck    Dr. Lillian Siu:  Leadership (Immediate family member): Treadwell Therapeutics  Stock and Other Ownership Interests (Immediate family member): Agios   Consulting or Advisory Role: Merck, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Roche, Voronoi Inc., Oncorus, GSK, Seattle Genetics, Arvinas, Navire, Janpix, Relay Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, Janssen, Research Funding (Institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Amgen, Astellas Pharma, Shattuck Labs, Symphogen, Avid, Mirati Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Amgen

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal and Dr. Rana McKay discuss promising studies in GU cancers featured at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting that highlighted improved outcomes in urothelial carcinoma, improved survival in renal cell carcinoma, and the role of ctDNA as a potential biomarker for predicting outcomes.   TRANSCRIPT Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Neeraj Agarwal, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I am the director of the Genitourinary Oncology Program, a professor of medicine at the University of Utah's Huntsman Cancer Institute, and editor-in-chief of the ASCO Daily News.  I am delighted to welcome Dr. Rana McKay, a GU medical oncologist and associate professor at the University of California San Diego. Today, we'll be discussing some key GU abstracts featured at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Rana, we're thrilled to have you on the podcast today to share your insights on key advances in GU oncology from ASCO24. Dr. Rana McKay: Thank you so much, Neeraj; it's a pleasure to be here. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: So, Rana, let's start with some bladder cancer abstracts. Could you tell us about Abstract 4503, titled “Impact of exposure on outcomes with enfortumab vedotin in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer”? Dr. Rana McKay: Of course, I would be delighted to. First, I would like to remind our listeners that enfortumab vedotin (EV) was approved as a monotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer based on the results of EV-201 and EV-301 trials. In these pivotal studies, EV was initiated at a dose of 1.25 mg/kg, and dose modifications, such as reductions and interruptions, were used to manage adverse events. In the abstract presented at ASCO 2024, Dr. Daniel Petrylak and colleagues conducted a post-hoc exploratory analysis to evaluate the association between EV plasma exposure and outcomes. They used multiple pharmacokinetic samples collected during the first two cycles and pre-dose samples from 3 EV monotherapy studies, namely EV-101, EV-201, and EV-301, that were conducted in patients with previously treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Dose reductions to 1 mg/kg were required in 42.1% and 35.1% of patients in the EV-201 and EV-301 trials, respectively, and reductions to 0.75 mg/kg were required in 13.6% and 11.1% in the EV-201 and EV-301 trials, respectively. Higher EV exposure during the first two cycles was associated with a higher objective response rate. The ORR was 21.4% for the dose of 0.75 mg/kg, while it was 18.5% for the dose of 1.0 mg/kg. Interestingly, increasing the dosage to 1.25 mg/kg improved the ORR, which ranged from 40 to 51.1% across various studies. In the EV-301 trial, when comparing the efficacy of EV to chemotherapy, EV improved PFS and OS across all dose quartiles, and there was no evidence that recommended dose modifications impacted long-term efficacy outcomes. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Rana, for this great summary. I would like to add that the meticulously conducted pharmacokinetic studies demonstrated that serum levels of EV correlated with responses. Importantly, patients who had to decrease the dose did not experience compromised outcomes as EV improved PFS and OS outcomes vs chemotherapy in across all exposure quartiles in the EV-301 trial where EV was compared with chemotherapy. These findings highlight the need to start at the recommended dose of 1.25 mg/kg and reduce it, if necessary, however, clinicians should not start at a lower dose.  Dr. Rana McKay: I totally agree with you, Neeraj. Now, moving on to a different setting in bladder cancer, what can you tell us about LBA4517, titled “Perioperative sacituzumab govitecan alone or in combination with pembrolizumab for patients with muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer: SURE-01/02 interim results”? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Of course! So, SURE was a multicohort, open-label, phase 2 study in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer assessing sacituzumab govitecan as a neoadjuvant therapy either alone in SURE-01 or as a combination with pembrolizumab followed by adjuvant pembro in SURE-02 in a flexible design allowing a bladder-sparing approach. In the abstract presented at ASCO 2024, Dr. Antonio Cigliola and colleagues report interim results of the SURE-01 study. Patients with cT2-4N0M0 urothelial carcinoma who were ineligible for or refused cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy were planned to receive 4 cycles of neoadjuvant sacituzumab govitecan at a dose of 10 mg/kg followed by radical cystectomy.  An extensive assessment was performed at baseline and after the 4 cycles for response assessment. Patients with clinical complete response defined with negative MRI, cystoscopy and ctDNA assays refusing radical cystectomy were offered redo transurethral resection of the bladder tumor or repeat TURBT followed by observation in the absence of viable high-grade tumor in the bladder. The primary endpoint was pathological complete response rate, while secondary endpoints included pathological downstaging rate and safety. After the first 8 patients were enrolled, the protocol was amended due to the occurrence of grade 3 and 4 neutropenia and diarrhea in 75% and 50% of patients, respectively, and 2 deaths – one of which was deemed to be treatment-related due to sepsis. Key protocol changes included the reduction of the dose of sacituzumab govitecan to 7.5 mg/kg, the introduction of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis, and the exclusion of patients at high risk of febrile neutropenia per ASCO guidelines.  Among 21 patients who received at least one cycle of sacituzumab govitecan and included in the intention-to-treat population, 47.6% had a complete pathological response, and 52.4% had pathological downstaging. 11 patients underwent radical cystectomy, while 7 received repeat-TURBT due to complete clinical response or patient preference. Regarding the safety profile, grade 3 or more adverse events occurred in 42.5% of patients. Treatment-related adverse events leading to dose interruptions or discontinuations were more common before the protocol amendment. It is noteworthy that 3 patients died after treatment discontinuation, with one deemed treatment-related, as previously mentioned. Dr. Rana McKay: Thank you, Neeraj, for a great summary. The pathological complete responses observed show promising activity for sacituzumab govitecan as a neo-adjuvant therapy and a window for bladder-sparing approaches, which is definitely exciting news for our patients! However, although the 3 deaths encountered in a neo-adjuvant setting could be concerning, the improvement of the safety profile after protocol amendments is reassuring and supports the continuation of the study. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Before wrapping up the bladder cancer section, would you like to share your insights with our listeners on Abstract 4518, titled “Quantitative circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) assessment in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma treated with pembrolizumab or platinum-based chemotherapy from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-361 trial”?  Dr. Rana McKay: Sure. So, the KEYNOTE-361 trial was a randomized phase 3 study with 3 arms that included pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, pembrolizumab monotherapy, or chemotherapy alone in patients with previously untreated advanced urothelial carcinoma. The results showed that neither the combination of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy nor pembrolizumab monotherapy improved survival outcomes compared to the chemotherapy arm. So, in this exploratory analysis presented at ASCO24, Dr. Tom Powles and colleagues sought to assess the role of ctDNA as a potential biomarker between the pembrolizumab monotherapy arm and the chemotherapy arm. Tumor tissue mutations were evaluated using whole exome sequencing, and plasma ctDNA was assessed with the Guardant 360 assay. Changes in ctDNA from pre-treatment cycle 1 to on-treatment cycle 2, so 3 weeks post-baseline assessment, were quantified by the maximum variant allele frequency of tumor tissue-specific mutations.  Results showed that lower baseline ctDNA levels were associated with improved clinical outcomes of response in the pembrolizumab arm but not in the chemotherapy arm. This improvement in the pembrolizumab arm was also robust to adjustment for tumor mutational burden and PD-L1. Additionally, chemotherapy led to a ctDNA clearance rate of 41% compared to 11% in the pembrolizumab arm. Patients who had a large ctDNA reduction with pembrolizumab had significantly improved outcomes compared to those achieving a large reduction with chemotherapy with a hazard ratio of 0.25. However, this did not replicate in patients who did not achieve a large reduction, as these patients had similar outcomes across both arms. Let's switch gears to kidney cancer and start with Abstract 4508, reporting the final OS analysis from the JAVELIN Renal-101 trial. Neeraj, what would you like to tell us about this abstract? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal:  Well, as a quick reminder, the JAVELIN Renal-101 was a randomized phase 3 trial where patients with previously untreated advanced or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma were randomized to receive either the combination of avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib. In previous analyses, the combination of avelumab and axitinib significantly improved PFS compared to sunitinib and was subsequently approved by the FDA for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced RCC in 2019. This superiority in PFS was maintained across the different analyses; however, OS data remained immature. In the abstract presented at ASCO24 by Dr. Robert Motzer from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and colleagues, the authors reported OS results at a median follow-up of around 73 months and a minimum of 68 months for all patients, which is the longest follow-up for any ICI-TKI combination in RCC. The final analysis in the overall population favored the combination of avelumab plus axitinib with a median OS of 44.8 months compared to 38.9 months with sunitinib, however, this did not reach statistical significance with a hazard ratio of 0.88. The PFS results and safety profile were consistent with previous analyses.  Dr. Rana McKay: Thank you, Neeraj, for such a nice overview of this abstract. These new data could make this regimen less optimal than other ICI-TKI combinations in the first-line mRCC setting.   Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: I concur, Rana. Moving on to perhaps one of the most exciting GU abstracts featured, Abstract 4506, titled “Circulating kidney injury molecule-1 biomarker analysis in IMmotion010: A randomized phase 3 study of adjuvant atezolizumab vs placebo in patients with renal cell carcinoma at increased risk of recurrence after resection.” Rana, what are your thoughts on this abstract? Dr. Rana McKay: Well, first, I would like to take a step back and remind our audience that in the IMmotion010 trial, patients with resected intermediate to high-risk RCC with clear cell and/or sarcomatoid component were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either atezolizumab or placebo. Investigator-assessed disease-free survival, which was the primary endpoint, favored the atezolizumab arm but did not reach statistical significance. In the abstract featured at ASCO24, Dr. Laurence Albiges and colleagues build on data previously reported in the ASSURE and CheckMate 914 trials and report provocative findings regarding a molecule known as kidney injury molecule 1 or KIM-1, which is a type 1 membrane glycoprotein that has been identified as a minimally invasive potential peripheral blood circulating biomarker. The KIM-1 level of 86 pg/ml was identified as the optimized threshold for defining post-nephrectomy KIM-1 high vs KIM-1 low subgroups in the IMmotion010 trial. KIM-1 levels were measured at baseline or pre-treatment, at cycle 4 day 1, and at disease recurrence or discontinuation without disease recurrence. Baseline characteristics were balanced between the KIM-1 high and KIM-1 low groups, except perhaps for a slightly higher pathological stage in the KIM-1 high subgroup.  I would like to highlight 3 key takeaways from this abstract. First, KIM-1 high level was associated with significantly worse DFS with a hazard ratio of 1.75. Second, patients in the KIM-1 high subgroup receiving atezolizumab had a 28% reduction in the risk of recurrence or death compared to those receiving placebo, while those in the KIM-1 low subgroup had comparable outcomes across both treatment arms. Third, patients in the KIM-1 high subgroup receiving atezolizumab were significantly less likely to experience an on-treatment increase in KIM-1 levels, which was associated with worse DFS in both high and low KIM-1 subgroups, regardless of treatment arm. Thus, these findings support the use of KIM-1 as both a predictive and prognostic biomarker in patients with RCC. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yes, Rana, this is amazing data! I would like to add that these results warrant larger and, ideally, prospective studies to validate the utility of KIM-1 as a noninvasive biomarker for identifying minimal residual disease after nephrectomy and for predicting outcomes to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Dr. Rana McKay: Also, in the field of biomarkers, 2 abstracts interrogating different biomarkers in a different setting, so in patients with advanced or metastatic RCC were presented. Neeraj, could you tell us more about these abstracts? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Of course! I think you are referring to Abstracts 4504 and 4505. In abstract 4504, Dr. Toni Choueiri and colleagues sought to assess the clinical implications of different biomarkers in the CLEAR trial, which was a randomized phase 3 trial that led to the approval of the combination of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib in the first-line mRCC setting. On the other hand, in abstract 4505, Dr. Brian Rini presented biomarker results in KEYNOTE-426, which was also a randomized phase 3 trial based on which the combination of pembrolizumab plus axitinib was approved in patients with mRCC. The authors in both trials sought to investigate the role of biomarkers in predicting treatment outcomes from 3 different angles. Starting with PD-L1 expression, the superiority of the combination arms over sunitinib was not impacted by PD-L1 status in both trials. Moving on to RCC driver gene mutations on whole exome sequencing, such as VHL, SETD2, PBRM1, and BAP1, ICI combination therapies improved outcomes regardless of mutation gene status, and this improvement was statistically significant with PBRM1 mutations in KEYNOTE-426 compared to wild-type PBRM1, but this did not replicate in the CLEAR trial. Finally, using transcriptomic signatures derived from RCC trials, especially the IMmotion 151 and JAVELIN Renal 101 trials, where 7 clusters or molecular subtypes were identified, the combination arms outperformed sunitinib in all clusters in both trials and the magnitude of this benefit differed across clusters.  Dr. Rana McKay: Thank you for this very interesting summary and comparison of the results of these 2 abstracts. These findings support the use of ICI-based combinations in all patients with mRCC as a first-line option. Although these abstracts could not identify specific biomarkers that could guide us clinicians in treatment selection, they provide very interesting biological insights on these molecular biomarkers that are, however, not yet clinically actionable. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Very interesting point, Rana. Moving on to prostate cancer, let's start with abstract LBA5000 titled, “Cabazitaxel with abiraterone versus abiraterone alone randomized trial for extensive disease following docetaxel: The CHAARTED2 trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (EA8153).” Rana, what is your takeaway on this abstract? Dr. Rana McKay: As a reminder to our audience, the CHAARTED2 trial was a randomized open-label phase 2 study that compared the combination of cabazitaxel and abiraterone to abiraterone alone in patients with mCRPC previously treated with ADT plus docetaxel in the hormone-sensitive setting. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. After a median follow-up of 47.3 months, Dr. Christos Kyriakopoulos and colleagues reported in LBA5000 that patients receiving the combination of cabazitaxel plus abiraterone had a 27% reduction in the risk of progression or death. However, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the two arms, with a median OS of 25 months in the cabazitaxel+abiraterone arm and 26.9 months in the abiraterone arm, although the study was underpowered for this endpoint. Regarding the toxicity profile, the combination of cabazitaxel and abiraterone was overall well tolerated with more cytopenias, as expected.  Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Very nice summary of this abstract, Rana. I would like to add that the treatment landscape of patients with mHSPC has evolved since the design of the study and now includes combination therapies of ADT + ARPI with or without docetaxel, and ADT + docetaxel is no longer a standard of care, which limits the applicability of these results in clinical practice today.  Dr. Rana McKay: Excellent point, Neeraj. Let's discuss Abstract 5001, titled “CYCLONE 2: A phase 3 study of abemaciclib with abiraterone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer”. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure! In the abstract featured at ASCO24, Dr. Matthew Smith and colleagues report the primary results of the CYCLONE 2 trial, which was a randomized phase 2/3 study that investigated the combination of abemaciclib plus abiraterone versus abiraterone monotherapy in patients with mCRPC. Stratification factors included radiographic progression at study entry, presence of measurable disease, and prior docetaxel for mHSPC. Part 1 of the study established the recommended phase 2 dose of abemaciclib at 200 mg twice daily. In part 2, patients were randomized to placebo or abemaciclib, and an adaptive interim analysis using prespecified criteria was performed and recommended the expansion of the study to part 3. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed radiographic progression-free survival by RECIST 1.1 and PCWG3 criteria in the intention-to-treat population. At the time of the primary analysis, adding abemaciclib to abiraterone did not improve rPFS, with a hazard ratio of 0.83. The median rPFS was 22 months for the combination arm and 20.3 months for the abiraterone arm. The combination was well tolerated, and the safety profile was consistent with the known adverse events. Dr. Rana McKay: So, the addition of abemaciclib to abiraterone did not improve outcomes in patients with mCRPC. These findings suggest that no further investigation is warranted for abemaciclib or CDK4/6 inhibitors in biomarker-unselected patients with prostate cancer.  Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Rana, what's your take-home message on Abstract 5006, titled “Health-related quality of life results from PRESTO (AFT-19), a phase 3 randomized trial of intensification of androgen blockade in patients with high-risk biochemically relapsed castration sensitive prostate cancer”? Dr. Rana McKay: So, as a reminder to our audience, the PRESTO trial was a randomized phase 3 study that assessed the effects of intensified androgen receptor blockade in patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer following local therapies. Patients with a PSA doubling time of less than 9 months and no evidence of metastatic disease were randomized to receive either 52 weeks of ADT alone, ADT plus apalutamide, or ADT plus apalutamide plus abiraterone. In their paper published earlier this year in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, the authors showed that patients receiving ADT plus apalutamide with or without abiraterone had significantly longer PSA-progression-free survival than those receiving ADT alone. In the oral presentation featured at ASCO24, Dr. Ronald Chen and colleagues report health-related quality of life outcomes that were assessed using various questionnaires or scales at baseline, at cycle 7, which is around 6 months on treatment, and at the end of treatment. Results showed that this intensified approach with apalutamide did not significantly increase severe adverse events, did not lengthen the time to testosterone recovery, and did not meaningfully increase common treatment-related symptoms such as hormonal symptoms, sexual dysfunction, hot flash interference, and fatigue. Importantly, additional intensification with abiraterone did not further improve PSA-PFS but did increase the rate of serious adverse events, lengthened the time to testosterone recovery, and increased hot flash interference.  Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: So, in conclusion, the PRESTO trial supports using intensified androgen blockade with apalutamide to improve PSA-PFS in patients with high-risk biochemically recurrent prostate cancer without compromising health-related quality of life. However, adding abiraterone did not offer additional benefits and increased side effects.  Dr. Rana McKay: Let's move on to LBA5002 titled, “A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of metformin in reducing progression among men on expectant management for low-risk prostate cancer: The MAST (Metformin Active Surveillance Trial) study.” Would you like to share your insights on this abstract with our listeners? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Absolutely. MAST was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial that investigated the impact of metformin on the progression of low-risk localized prostate cancer in patients choosing to undergo active surveillance. Eligible patients had biopsy-proven, low-risk, localized prostate cancer diagnosed within the past 6 months, characterized by a Gleason score of less than 6 observed in less than one-third of the total cores, less than 50% positivity in any one core, a PSA level of less than 10 ng/ml, and a clinical-stage between T1c and T2a. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either metformin 850 mg twice daily or placebo for three years. All patients underwent repeat prostate biopsy at 18 and 36 months. The primary endpoint was time to progression, defined as the earliest occurrence of primary prostate cancer therapy, such as prostatectomy, radiation, hormonal therapy, or pathological progression on subsequent biopsies, which was defined as more than 1/3 of total cores involved, at least 50% of any one core involved, or Gleason pattern 4 or higher. The study included 407 patients, with 204 receiving metformin and 203 receiving a placebo. Results presented by Dr. Anthony Joshua showed no statistically significant difference in progression-free survival, including therapeutic and pathologic progression, with an unadjusted hazard ratio of 1.08.  Interestingly, there was a signal that patients with a BMI more than 30 had a detriment to taking metformin with a higher risk of progression compared to those receiving placebo with an unadjusted HR of 2.39 and a p-value of 0.01. Dr. Rana McKay: I would like to add that this study showed that metformin use does not prevent the progression of low-risk localized prostate cancer on active surveillance and could represent a potential detriment for patients with high BMI at study entry. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yes, Rana, I concur. Any final remarks before we conclude today's podcast? Dr. Rana McKay:  Thank you, Neeraj; it's been wonderful being here with you today and you having me on the podcast to highlight these important advances and the amazing work that many investigators are conducting and the patients who were involved in the context of these trials. It's really excellent to see these updated results.   Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Before we wrap up this podcast, I would like to say that we have reviewed a selection of abstracts addressing prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer, which are significantly impacting our medical practices now and in the near future. Rana, thank you for sharing your insights today. These updates are undoubtedly exciting for the entire GU oncology community, and we greatly appreciate your valuable contribution to the discussion. Many thanks. And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You will find links to the abstracts discussed today on the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.   Find out more about today's speakers:    Dr. Neeraj Agarwal   @neerajaiims   Dr. Rana McKay  @DrRanaMcKay     Follow ASCO on social media:      @ASCO on Twitter      ASCO on Facebook      ASCO on LinkedIn         Disclosures:        Dr. Neeraj Agarwal:         Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Nektar, Lilly, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Foundation Medicine, Astellas Pharma, Lilly, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, AVEO, Calithera Biosciences, MEI Pharma, Genentech, Astellas Pharma, Foundation Medicine, and Gilead Sciences     Research Funding (Institution): Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Exelixis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Calithera Biosciences, Celldex, Eisai, Genentech, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck, Lilly, Nektar, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Crispr Therapeutics, Arvinas      Dr. Rana McKay:   Consulting or Advisory Role: Janssen, Novartis, Tempus, Exelxis, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas Medivation, Dendreon, Bayer, Sanofi, Merck, Vividion, Calithera, AstraZeneca, Myovant, Caris Life Sciences, Sorrento Therapeutics, AVEO, Seattle Genetics, Telix, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Bayer, Tempus

Drs. John Sweetenham and Angela DeMichele discuss potentially ground-breaking abstracts in breast and lung cancer as well as notable research on artificial intelligence and its impact on cancer care, all of which were featured at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting.  TRANSCRIPT Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham from UT Southwestern's Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center and host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. My guest today is Dr. Angela DeMichele, the Marianne and Robert McDonald Professor in Breast Cancer Research and co-leader of the Breast Cancer Program at the University of Pennsylvania's Abramson Cancer Center. Dr. DeMichele also served as the chair of the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting Scientific Program. Today, she'll be sharing her reflections on the Annual Meeting and we'll be highlighting some advances and innovations that are addressing unmet needs and accelerating progress in oncology.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Dr. DeMichele, congratulations on a very robust and highly successful program at ASCO24, and thanks for joining us on the podcast today. Dr. Angela DeMichele: Well, thanks so much for having me, Dr. Sweetenham. It's a pleasure to be here.  Dr. John Sweetenham: The presidential theme of the Annual Meeting this year was the "The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure." And this was certainly reflected throughout the meeting in Chicago that welcomed more than 40,000 attendees from across the globe. I know our listeners will be interested to hear some of your own reflections from the meeting now that we're on the other side of it, so to spea  Dr. Angela DeMichele: Yes. Well, I will say that playing this role in the annual meeting really was a highlight of my career, and I feel so fortunate to have had the opportunity to do it. We had over 200 sessions, and in many, if not all of these sessions, we really tried to make sure that there was a case that really sort of grounded the session to really help people understand: you're going to hear about science, but how are you going to apply that? Who is the patient for whom this science really is important?  We had over 7,000 abstracts submitted, and our 25 tracks and their chairs really pulled through to find really the best science that we could present this year. I think what you saw really was a representation of that across the board: incredible advances in lung cancer, breast cancer, melanoma, GI cancers; also really cutting-edge technologies: AI, as we'll talk about in a little while circulating markers like ctDNA, new drug development, new classes of drugs. So it was really an exciting meeting. I mean, some highlights for me, I would say, were certainly the Plenary, and we can talk a little bit about that. Also, we had a fantastic ASCO/AACR Joint Session on “Drugging the “Undruggable Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead.” And, if any of the listeners have not had a chance to hear this, it's really worth going in and watching this because it really brought together three amazing speakers who talked about the successes in KRAS, and then really, how are we using that success in learning how to target KRAS to now targeting a variety of other previously thought to be undruggable targets. I learned so much. And there's really both the academic and the pharma perspective there. So I'd really encourage watching this session. The other session that I really thought was terrific was one that I was honored to chair, which was a fireside chat (“How and Where Will Public Investment Accelerate Progress in Oncology? A Discussion with the NIH and NCI Directors”) with both Dr. Monica Bertagnolli, who is the director of the NIH, and Dr. Kim Rathmell, who's now the director of the NCI. And boy, I'll tell you, these two incredibly smart, thoughtful, insightful women; it was a great conversation. They were really understanding of the challenges we face conducting research, practicing medicine. And maybe different from leadership at the NIH in the past, they've really taken the approach to say that everything they do is focused on the patient, and they don't limit themselves to just research or just science, that everything that the NIH does, and particularly the NCI does, really has to be focused on making sure we can give patients the best possible care. And I think they're being very thoughtful about building important infrastructure that's going to take us into the future, incorporating AI, incorporating new clinical trial approaches that are going to make it faster and easier to conduct clinical trials and to get the results that we need sooner. So just a few of the highlights, I think, from some really interesting sessions. Dr. John Sweetenham: It certainly was an extremely enriching and impactful ASCO24. And I think that the overall theme of the meeting was extremely well reflected in the content with this amazing mix of really, truly impactful science, along with a great deal of patient-centered healthcare delivery science to accompany it. So, I completely agree with you about that. There was a lot, of course, to take in over the five days of the meeting, but I'm sure that our listeners would be very interested to hear about one or two abstracts that really stood out for you this year.  Dr. Angela DeMichele: Sure. I'm a breast cancer specialist, so I can't help but feel that the late breaking abstract, the DESTINY-Breast06 trial, was really important for the field of breast cancer. So just briefly, this is a study of the antibody drug conjugate T-DxD, trastuzumab deruxtecan. This is a drug that is actually now approved in metastatic breast cancer, really effective in HER2-positive disease. But the question that this trial was trying to answer is, can this drug, which is built with the herceptin antibody against HER2, then linked to a chemotherapeutic molecule, can this work even in the setting of very, very low HER2 expression on a tumor? I think this is an incredibly important question in the field of antibody drug conjugates, of which there are now many across diseases, is how much of the target do you really need to have on the surface of the tumor?  We had seen previously HER2 overexpressing tumors respond really well to this drug. HER2 tumors that have an intermediate level of expression were tested in the DP04 trial, and we saw that even those 2+ intermediate tumors responded well to this drug. The DP06 trial that was presented at ASCO was looking at this group of patients that have even less HER2 on the surface. So we typically measure HER2 by immunohistochemistry as 0, 1+, 2+, or 3+. And this was looking at patients whose tumors were over 0, but were at 1+ or below, so low and ultra-low. And it turned out that compared to treatment of physician's choice, the drug really had quite a lot of activity, even in these patients who have very little HER2 on their tumors, really showing progression-free survival benefits in the HER2-low and HER2-ultra-low groups that were appreciable on the order of about 5 months, additional progression free survival hazard ratios around 0.6, so really demonstrating that utilizing an antibody drug conjugate, where you've got very little target, can still be a way to get that drug to a tumor.   And I think it'll remain to be seen whether other ADCs can have activity at very low levels of IHC expression of whatever target they're designed against. I think one of the tricky things here for implementing this in breast cancer will be how do pathologists actually identify the tumors that are ultra-low because it's not something that we typically do. And so we'll go through a period, I think, of adjustment here of really trying to understand how to measure this. And there are a bunch of new technologies that I think will do a better job of detecting low levels of the protein on the surface of the tumor because the current IHC test really isn't designed to do that. It was only designed to be focused on finding the tumors that had high levels. So we have some newer technologies with immunofluorescence, for example, that can really get down to very low levels. And I think this is going to be a whole new area of ADCs, target detection – how low can you go to still see activity? So I thought that this was an important abstract for many reasons.  I will just say the second area that I was really particularly impressed with and had a big impact on me were the two lung cancer abstracts that were presented in the Plenary, the LAURA trial (LBA4) and the ADRIATIC trial (LBA5). And I think, I've been in the field of oncology for 30 years now, and when I started in the late ‘90s, lung cancer was a disease for which we had very few treatments. If we didn't catch it early and surgery wasn't possible for non-small cell lung cancer, really, it was a horrible prognosis. So we knew this year was the 20th anniversary of the discovery of EGFR as a subtype of lung cancer. That was really, I think, a turning point in the field of non-small cell lung cancer – finding a target. And now seeing the LAURA trial show that osimertinib really had such an enormous impact on progression-free survival amongst these patients who had EGFR-positive non-small cell lung cancer, progression-free survival hazard ratio of 0.16; there was a standing ovation.  And one of the really big privileges of being the Scientific Program Chair is getting to moderate the Plenary Session, and it's a really amazing experience to be standing up there or sitting there while the presenter is getting a standing ovation. But this was well deserved because of the impact this is having on patients with EGFR positive lung cancer. And it was similar with the ADRIATIC trial, which looked at the benefits of adding immunotherapy in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. Again, a disease that treatment has not changed in 30 years, and so the addition of durvalumab to the standard backbone of chemotherapy for small cell lung cancer had its survival advantage. These patients are living longer and it was really an impressive improvement. And I think it really underscores just the revolution that has happened in lung cancer between targeted therapy and immunotherapy has completely changed the prognosis for patients with this disease. So to me, these were really landmark reports that came out at ASCO that really showed us how far we've come in oncology. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely. I think that, as you mentioned, those results are truly remarkable, and they reflect extraordinary advances in science. I think we see that both in terms of the therapeutic arena, but also, I think we've started to see it in other areas as well, like symptom control, remote patient monitoring, and so on and so forth, where some of the newer virtual technologies are really having major impacts as well. Dr. Angela DeMichele: Yes, we really wanted to have a focus on artificial intelligence in this meeting, because it's having such an enormous impact on our field in everything from care delivery to diagnostics. I'd love to hear what you thought was the most interesting, because there really was just new data across the board presented. Dr. John Sweetenham: I've actually chosen 3 abstracts which I thought were particularly interesting for a couple of reasons, really. They're all based on virtual health interventions, and I think they're interesting in really reflecting the theme of the meeting, in that they are extremely advanced technology involved in the virtual platforms, a couple of which are artificial intelligence, but very impactful to patients at the same time in terms of remote symptom control, in terms of addressing disparities, and in one case, even influencing survival. So I thought these were three really interesting abstracts that I'll walk the listeners through very quickly.  The first of these was a study, Abstract 1500 (“National implementation of an AI-based virtual dietician for patients with cancer”) which looked at an artificial intelligence-based virtual dietitian for patients with cancer. This is based on the fact that we know nutritional status to be a key driver of patient experience and of cancer outcomes. And as the authors of the presentation noted, 80% of patients look for nutritional support, but many of them don't get it. And that's primarily a workforce issue. And I think that's an important thematic point as well, that these new technologies can help us to address some of the workforce issues we have in oncology. So this was an AI-based platform developed by experts in nutrition and cancer patients, based on peer reviewed literature, and a major effort in terms of getting all of these data up together. And they developed an artificial intelligence platform, which was predominantly text message based. And this platform was called INA. And as this is developing as a platform, there's a machine learning component to it as well. So in theory, it's going to get better and better and better over time.  And what they did in their study was they looked at little over 3,000 patients across the entire country who were suffering from various types of cancer, GU, breast, gynecological malignancy, GI and lung. And most of them had advanced-stage disease, and many of them had nutritional challenges. For example, almost 60% of them were either overweight or obese by BMI. And the patients were entered into a text exchange with the AI platform, which would give them advice on what they should eat, what they shouldn't eat. It would push various guidance and tips to them, it would develop personalized recipes for them, and it would even develop menu plans for the patients. And what's really interesting about this is that the level of engagement from the patients was very high, with almost 70% of patients actually texting questions to this platform. About 80% of the patients completed all of the surveys, and the average time that patients interacted with the platform was almost nine months, so this was remarkable levels of engagement, high levels of patient satisfaction. And although at this point, I think it's very early and somewhat subjective, there was certainly a very positive kind of vibe from patients. Nearly 50% have used the recommended recipes. More than 80% of them thought that their symptoms improved while they were using this platform. So I think as a kind of an assistant for remote management of patients, it's really remarkable. And the fact that the level of engagement was so high also means that for those patients, it's been very impactful.   The second one, this was Abstract 100 (“AI virtual patient navigation to promote re-engagement of U.S. inner city patients nonadherent with colonoscopy appointments: A quality improvement initiative”) looked again at an AI-based platform, which in this case was used in an underserved population to address healthcare disparities. This is a study from New York which was looking at colorectal cancer screening disparities amongst an underserved population, where historically they've used skilled patient navigators to address compliance with screening programs, in this case specifically for colorectal cancer. And they noticed in the background to this study that in their previous experience in 2022, almost 60% of patients either canceled or no-showed for colonoscopy appointments. And because of this and because of the high burden of patients that this group has, they decided to take an AI-based virtual patient navigator called MyEleanor and introduce this into their colorectal cancer screening quality improvement.  And so they introduced this platform in April of 2023 through to the end of the year, and their plan was to target reengagements of around 2,500 patients who had been non adherent with colonoscopy appointments in a previous year. And so the platform MyEleanor would call the patients to discuss rescheduling, it would assess their barriers to uptake, it would offer live transfer to somebody to schedule for them, and then it would go on closer to the point of the colonoscopy to call the patients and give them advice about their prep. And it was very nuanced. The platform would speak in both English and Spanish versions. It could detect nuances in the patient's voice, which might then trigger it to refer the patient to a live agent rather than the AI platform. So, very sophisticated technology. And what was most interesting about this, I think, was that over the eight months of the study, around 60% of patients actually engaged with this platform, with almost 60% of that group, or 33% overall, accepting a live transfer and then going on to scheduling, so that the completion rate for the no show patients went from 10% prior to the introduction of this platform to 19% after it was introduced. So [this is] another example, I think, of something which addresses a workforce problem and also addresses a major disparity within cancer care at the moment by harnessing these new technologies. And I think, again, a great interaction of very, very high-level science with things that make a real difference to our patients.  So, Dr. DeMichele, those are a couple of examples, I think, of early data which really are beginning to show us the potential and signal the impact that artificial intelligence is going to have for our patients in oncology. I wonder, do you have any thoughts right now of where you see the biggest impact of artificial intelligence; let's say not in 20 years from now, but maybe in the next year or two?  Dr. Angela DeMichele: Well, I think that those were two excellent examples. A really important feature of AI is really easing the workload on physicians. And what I hope will happen is that we'll be able to use AI in the very near future as a partner to really offload some of the quite time-consuming tasks, like charting, documentation, that really take us away from face-to-face interaction with patients. I think this has been a very difficult period where we move to electronic medical records, which are great for many reasons, but have really added to the burden to physicians in all of the extra documentation. So that's one way, I think, that we will hope to really be able to harness this. I think the other thing these abstracts indicate is that patients are very willing to interact with these AI chatbots in a way that I think, as you pointed out, the engagement was so high. I think that's because they trust us to make sure that what we're doing is still going to be overseen by physicians, that the information is going to get to us, and that they're going to be guided. And so I think that in areas where we can do outreach to patients, reminders, this is already happening with mammograms and other sorts of screening, where it's automated to make sure you're giving reminders to patients about things that they need to do for some of their basic health maintenance. But here, really providing important information – counseling that can be done by one of these chatbots in a way that is compassionate, informative and does not feel robotic to patients.   And then I was really impressed with, in the abstract on the screening colonoscopy, the ability of the AI instrument to really hear nuances in the patient's responses that could direct them directly to a care provider, to a clinician, if they thought that there might be some problem the patient was experiencing. So again, this could be something that could be useful in triaging phone calls that are coming in from patients or our portals that just feel like they are full of messages, no matter how hard you try to clear them all out, to get to them all. Could we begin to use AI to triage some of the more mundane questions that don't require a clinician to answer so that we can really focus on the things that are important, the things that are life threatening or severe, and make sure that we're getting to patients sooner? So there's just a few ways I really hope it'll help us. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely. I think we're just scratching the surface. And interestingly enough, in my newsfeed this morning through email, I have an email that reads, “Should AI pick immunotherapy combinations?” So we'll see where that goes, and maybe one day it will. Who knows? Dr. Angela DeMichele There was a great study presented at ASCO about that very thing, and I think that is still early, but I could envision a situation where I could ask an AI instrument to tell me all of the data around something that I want to know about for a patient that could deliver all of the data to me in real time in the clinic to be able to help me make decisions, help me quote data to patients. I think in that way it could be very, very helpful. But it'll still need the physicians to be putting the data into context and thinking about how to apply it to the individual person. Dr. John Sweetenham: Absolutely, yes. And so just to round off, the final abstract that caught my eye, which I think kind of expands on a theme that we saw at an ASCO meeting two or three years ago around the impact of [oncology] care at home, and this was Abstract 1503 (“Acute care and overall survival results of a randomized trial of a virtual health intervention during routine cancer treatment”). So, a virtual platform but not AI in this case. And this was a study that looked at the use of an Integrative Medicine at Home virtual mind-body fitness program. And this was a platform that was used to look at hospital admission and acute care of patients who used it, and also looked at survival, interestingly enough. So what was done in this study was a small, randomized study which looked at the use of virtual live mind, body and fitness classes, and compared this in a randomized fashion to what they called enhanced usual care, which essentially consisted of giving the patients, making available to the patients, some pre-recorded online meditation resources that they could use. And this was applied to a number of patients with various malignancies, including melanoma, lung, gynecologic, head and neck cancers, all of whom were on systemic therapy and all of whom were reporting significant fatigue.  This was a small study; 128 patients were randomized in this study. And what was very interesting, to cut to the chase here, is that the patients who had the virtual mind-body program, compared with the control group, actually were less likely to be hospitalized, the difference there being 6.3% versus 19.1%, respectively. They spent fewer days in the hospital. And remarkably, the overall survival was 24.3 months median for patients in the usual care arm and wasn't reached in those patients who were on the virtual mind-body fitness class platform. So very preliminary data, certainly are going to need more confirmation, but another example of how it appears that many of these non-pharmacological interventions have the potential to improve meaningful endpoints, including hospital stays and, remarkably, even survival. So again, I think that that is very consistent with the theme of this year's meeting, and I found that particularly interesting, too.  I think our time is up, so I want to thank you, Dr. DeMichele, for sharing your insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. We really appreciate it. And once again, I want to congratulate you on what was really a truly remarkable ASCO this year.  Dr. Angela DeMichele: Well, thanks so much for having me. It's been a tremendous pleasure to be with you today. Dr. John Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find links to the abstracts discussed today in a transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.   Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Follow ASCO on social media:    @ASCO on Twitter    ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures:   Dr. John Sweetenham:   Consulting or Advisory Role: EMA Wellness  Dr. Angela DeMichele: Consulting or Advisory Role (an immediate family member): Pfizer Research Funding (Inst.): Pfizer, Genentech, Novartis, Inviata/NeoGenomics  

Drs. John Sweetenham and Marc Braunstein discuss practice-changing studies in hematologic malignancies that were featured at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, including the ASC4FIRST trial in chronic myeloid leukemia and IMROZ and CARTITUDE-4 in multiple myeloma.  TRANSCRIPT Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham from UT Southwestern's Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center and host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. On today's episode, we'll be discussing practice-changing abstracts and other key advances in hematological malignancies that were featured at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. Joining me for this discussion is an old friend, Dr. Marc Braunstein, a hematologist and oncologist from the NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Marc, it's great to have you back on the podcast again. There were some important studies in the heme space at the Annual Meeting this year, and we're very pleased that you're able to share your takeaways.  Dr. Marc Braunstein: Thank you, John. It's great to be back again. Dr. John Sweetenham: Let's start out, Marc, with LBA6500. This abstract reports the primary results of the ASC4FIRST trial, and this was a trial comparing asciminib with investigator selected tyrosine kinase inhibitors in newly diagnosed patients with chronic myeloid leukemia. Could you tell us a little about the trial and how you think it's going to impact clinical practice? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Absolutely. So, asciminib is an oral tyrosine kinase of the ABL kinase domain. As we know in CML, the BCR-ABL translocation is characteristic of the disease, and asciminib is approved for chronic phase CML with a T315I resistance mutation or for patients who have received 2 or more prior lines of therapy. So the ASC4FIRST trial was a randomized trial of 405 patients with newly diagnosed chronic phase CML who are randomized one to one to receive either asciminib at 80 milligrams once daily, or investigator's choice of a first generation TKI imatinib or one of three second generation TKIs nilotinib, dasatinib, or bosutinib. The primary endpoint of the study was the major molecular response, or MMR, at 48 weeks. Pretty much, the study met its primary endpoint with a 67% rate of MMR at 48 weeks, with asciminib versus 49% in patients treated with the investigator's choice of TKI. And in addition, the major molecular remission or MMR of 4.5, which is a deep remission, those rates were higher as well, with asciminib versus investigator's choice at a rate of 39% versus 21% when comparing the groups. Furthermore, when we looked at toxicity, there were fewer grade 3 or higher adverse events, with the asciminib at 38% versus either 44% with the first generation, or 55% with the second generation TKI, and fewer discontinuations as well with asciminib.  So I think this abstract is practice-changing. I think it offers compelling data to use asciminib upfront for chronic phase CML. Those who don't agree with that sentiment might argue that we want to see longer term follow up. There's a planned follow-up at 96 weeks. We would want to see the rate of progression to acute myeloid leukemia and of course overall survival as well. But I think the abstract certainly shows an improvement in outcomes with asciminib versus our current array of TKIs. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, I think it certainly is, at least at minimum, potentially practice changing. I agree with you. Just one question, and this may be a little bit speculative, but do you have any thoughts about treatment free survival with asciminib and how that might line up against some of the other TKIs? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Yeah, that's a great question. The abstract did not necessarily address that, patients were treated until progression, but we know that with the current landscape of TKIs, that in patients who have achieved a deep MR of 4 or 4.5 for at least 2 years who discontinue their TKI, the rate of relapse is about 50%. The current study, the ASC4FIRST, doesn't address that, but I think it's a really good question about whether, for those patients who have achieved a deep remission, whether they can eventually stop asciminib down the line. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, I guess it's one of those ‘watch this space' things.  So we'll see how the data mature out. And let's move on to what I think is another potentially practice-changing study, at least in certain parts of the world. And that's [the] LBA7000 study in classical Hodgkin lymphoma. As you remember, this was a German Hodgkin lymphoma study group trial which looked at the tolerability and efficacy of a novel regimen, BrECADD versus eBEACOPP for patients with advanced stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma in their study, which is known as GHSG HD21. Can you give us your thoughts and take home messages from this trial? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Yeah, John, absolutely. So the German HD21 study is a phase 3 study of 1,500 patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma. The majority were stage 3 or 4, 84%, that compared two regimens BEACOPP to BrECADD. The major difference between these 2 groups being that the newer BrECADD regimen swaps out bleomycin for brentuximab vedotin, which is an anti-CD30 antibody drug conjugate. Also, in the BrECADD regimen they eliminate vincristine that's incorporated into BEACOPP. Those are kind of the global differences between these 2 regimens. And when comparing these, they looked at the primary endpoint of progression-free survival. Of note, in this study there was a PET adjusted approach where if patients achieved interim PET negativity after 2 cycles, that was followed by an additional 2 cycles of their treatment as opposed to 4 cycles if they were PET positive after the initial 2 cycles of their respective treatment. And of note, there were similar rates of PET2 negativity between both arms, about 58% in both arms.  So at a median follow-up of 48 months, the 4-year progression-free survival was significantly better with the brentuximab containing BrECADD regimen at 94% versus 91% with a hazard ratio of 0.66. And the overall survival of the BrECADD arm was 98.6%, which is very high and impressive. The 4-year overall survival was similar between the arms at around 98%, but of note, there were fewer severe adverse events with BrECADD, the brentuximab containing arm versus BEACOPP at about 42% versus 59% and interestingly less peripheral neuropathy with the brentuximab containing BrECADD. So we're doing extremely well in treating advanced stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma. So the bar is set very high. But in this study, the rates of progression-free survival and overall survival are very impressive.  While these intensive regimens tend to be used outside of the U.S., there are several notable benefits of the study, including greater than 50% PET2 negativity and high rates of progression-free survival at 4 years. In discussing this abstract, it's worth noting that there are other competing regimens, if you want to call it that, that are more commonly used in the U.S. So the ECHELON-1 study looked at brentuximab AVD compared with ABVD with bleomycin and it was a 94% versus 89% 6-year overall survival rate favoring the brentuximab containing A+AVD regimen. And lastly, more recently, the SWOG S1826 study that hasn't been published but was presented in abstract form looked at nivolumab AVD versus brentuximab AVD at a median follow up of 12 months showed a progression-free survival of 94% versus 86%. And that study still has yet to be published and needs to mature. But both of those regimens are in the NCCN guidelines. So, we're definitely pushing the bar higher in terms of improving responses in treating advanced classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Dr. John Sweetenham: I think that there's no question that these results from BrECADD are very impressive. But I'm taken back to what I think has been a kind of philosophic discussion in Hodgkin lymphoma now for a number of years about balancing disease control and efficacy against the potential short-term and long-term toxicity of the regimens, particularly when you have very effective salvage therapies for those patients who may suffer a relapse. So I think that this is a discussion over whether you take a very intensive, upfront approach to Hodgkin lymphoma versus something that may be less and slightly less intensive. I suspect that's a discussion that's going to continue for a long time. I don't know what you feel, but my own feeling about this is that this study will likely have a major influence over treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma, particularly in western Europe. Less likely in the US.., I would think. I don't know what your thoughts about that are. Dr. Marc Braunstein: Well, it's a great question. In SWOG S1826, that study did include pediatric patients. In HD21, the median age was 31 and did not include pediatric patients. So I think we have to be selective in terms of fitness and which patients may be better suited for different regimens. But I think what all these studies show is certainly when we incorporate novel immunotherapies, whether it's brentuximab vedotin, nivolumab, we improve progression-free survival and even overall survival. Dr. John Sweetenham: Absolutely.  So let's shift gears now and take a look at Abstract 7500, the IMROZ study. This was the study of isatuximab, bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone versus VRD alone for transplant ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. I know we discussed this in our preview podcast a few weeks back, Marc, but I just wonder now, having seen the data in more detail, what do you think of the important takeaways? And again, are we looking at a new standard of care? Dr. Marc Braunstein: You know, there are many standards of care in multiple myeloma, but we're always looking to make improvements on the regimens we have at our disposal. So, just to recap, IMROZ is a phase 3 randomized study of the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody isatuximab with the backbone of bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone or VRD versus VRD alone, specifically, in transplant ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients age less than 80. They studied 446 patients in this study, randomized 3 to 2 to Isa-VRD versus VRD alone, with the primary endpoint of progression free survival. Now, similar to other studies where they included a monoclonal antibody up front, the study met its primary endpoint of improving progression-free survival with the quad regimen containing the monoclonal antibody isatuximab versus VRD alone.  So what was interesting about the study, it's really the first of its kind to be presented that specifically looked at transplant ineligible patients, which is presumably a less fit or perhaps more frail population that wouldn't go on to consolidation with stem cell transplant. And in this study, the progression-free survival at 5 years was 63% versus 45%, clearly superior when you included isatuximab. And the rates of complete remission and MRD negativity were all significantly improved, too. However, that was also met with slightly more grade 3 or higher treatment emergent adverse events, 92% versus 84% in the control arm. There are also 11% grade 5 treatment emergent adverse events with the isatuximab group versus 5.5% with VRD alone. Although there was no major difference in treatment discontinuation. One small caveat worth noting, too, is that high-risk patients in this study, when presented at ASCO, did not necessarily show a difference in benefit, although there wasn't necessarily a detriment either.  So, John, I think that clearly quadruplet regimens are superior in outcomes of efficacy to triplets, even in transplant-ineligible patients. But I think we have to tailor these treatments to individual patients because I think when it comes to transplant-ineligible patients, it's a spectrum of patients who may be more or less fit for quad regimens versus triplet regimens. It's also worth noting, though, that in this study, the patients are really only getting a quad regimen for 4 cycles. They get their Isa-VRD, and then you drop the bortezomib.  So when we think about quads, it's not that they're getting the quad regimen indefinitely, it's really for the induction cycles. But still, I think we have to be aware of potential safety issues. Dr. John Sweetenham: Okay, great. And let's stay on the theme of multiple myeloma, Marc, and talk a little bit about Abstract 7504, which was a subgroup analysis of the CARTITUDE-4 study. This is a report on the use of ciltacabtagene autoleucel versus standard of care in patients with functional high risk multiple myeloma. Can you give us your thoughts on this and maybe put it into a bit of context for us?  Dr. Marc Braunstein: Absolutely, John. It's really a great time to be in the field of multiple myeloma. We're making tremendous progress, but when we think about one of the unmet needs, it's just consistently the high-risk patients who have shorter responses and are at higher risk for poorer outcomes. Just to review, cilta-cel is one of the 2 available anti-BCMA CAR T-cell products available for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Very recently, the FDA approved cilta-cel for lenalidomide refractory patients after 2 or more prior lines of therapy based on the CARTITUDE-4 study, which was published by San-Miguel and colleagues in New England Journal of Medicine in July 2023. And that study randomized 419 patients with multiple myeloma with 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy to receive either cilta-cel or physician's choice of standard of care, which was either 1 of 2 triplet regimens, a pomalidomide, bortezomib, dexamethasone or daratumumab, pomalidomide and dexamethasone. It's worth noting that about 25% of the patients in the CARTITUDE-4 study had prior anti-CD38 antibody treatment previously and the carfilzomib was not included in one of the standard-of-care arms, and we know that those regimens containing carfilzomib do increase survival in relapsed myeloma.  Nevertheless, the primary outcome of progression-free survival was not reached in the CAR T-cell arm versus 11.8 months in the standard-of-care arm, with a significant reduction in progression of 74%. So clearly a positive study and CAR T-cell therapy is included in the NCCN guidelines for patients who have an early relapse from their myeloma. The current abstract by Costa et al focused specifically on a subgroup of 79 patients from CARTITUDE-4 in second line of treatment and looked at what they called functional high-risk myeloma, defined as progression of disease within 18 months of initial treatment or after stem cell transplant. Again, the study showed a retained benefit of cilta-cel with significant improvement in progression-free survival either not reached or 12 months with the control standard of care arm, as well as complete remission rate and rates of MRD negativity of 65% versus 10% in the control.  The overall survival outcome was still immature and not presented. Nevertheless, cilta-cel is clearly superior to standard-of-care triplet regimens. I think that for patients with high risk, they clearly derive a benefit from CAR T-cell therapy if they have short progression-free survival after initial therapy.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Marc. So let's round this out by talking about another area of unmet need, I guess in a way in a difficult to treat patient group. And that's Abstract 7007, the SYMPATICO study. This is a study which looks at the efficacy and safety of ibrutinib and venetoclax in patients with mantle cell lymphoma who had a mutated TP53. Can you just briefly review this for us and tell us what you think we should be taking away from this studys? Dr. Marc Braunstein: So, mantle cell lymphoma typically has an aggressive behavior, but the subgroup of patients with a P53 mutation tend to have the poorest outcomes and do represent an area of unmet need. Although BTK inhibitors are making important improvements in mantle cell lymphoma, they have yet to be approved in newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma. Acalibutinib and zanubrutinib are FDA-approved BTK inhibitors for previously treated mantle cell lymphoma. Ibrutinib was withdrawn from the market in the U.S. for mantle cell lymphoma. Dr. Michael Wang's group presented late-breaking data from the phase 3 SYMPATICO trial at ASH 2023, in which 267 patients with relapsed refractory mantle cell lymphoma were randomized to receive either ibrutinib plus the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax or ibrutinib plus placebo after 1 to 5 prior lines of therapy. And that study showed a 32 versus 22 months progression-free survival at a median follow up of 51 months. The current abstract, also by Dr. Wang and colleagues, looked at the subgroup of patients who had a P53 mutation and included an open label cohort of 44 patients in the first line of treatment and a relapse refractory cohort of 75 patients, and compared this subgroup of patients with P53 mutation to those without. When we look at the outcomes, the patients who did not have a P53 mutation clearly did better in terms of progression-free survival being not reached in first-line treatment compared to 22 months progression-free survival in those patients with first-line [treatment] with a P53 mutation. As well as in the relapsed refractory setting, the PFS without the P53 mutation was 47 months versus 21 months with the mutation. However, when you look at these patients treated with ibrutinib and venetoclax comparing whether they got treated in first line or the relapse refractory setting, the overall response rates are very similar at about 80% to 90% and the CR rates were very similar at about 55% to 58%, which to me suggests that although patients with P53 mutation do worse than those without it, whether they're treated in the first-line or the relapse setting with this combination of venetoclax, they tend to do somewhat similar, suggesting that you can overcome resistance to prior therapy in the relapse setting. So I think further data are certainly warranted to explore the role of combination therapies that include novel agents such as BTK inhibitors in the first line setting.  It's worth noting that the TRIANGLE study was recently published, and this study looked at including ibrutinib at various phases, including at induction in combination with intensive chemotherapy and during the maintenance phase. And that study showed encouraging outcomes in patients who received ibrutinib even without stem cell transplant compared to those who received stem cell transplant. So the role of BTKIs in mantle cell lymphoma is certainly evolving, and I think it offers a very effective intervention without the same kind of toxicities we see with cytotoxic chemotherapy that's traditionally used in mantle cell lymphoma. But I think the subgroup of patients with P53 mutation in this disease still represent an area of unmet need that unfortunately have worse outcomes. But novel agents may be able to overcome some of those adverse outcomes. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, I agree. I think these are intriguing data, and obviously it needs more follow-up and probably more prospective studies. But nevertheless, I think there are some signals there for sure that need to be followed up on.  Marc, as always, it's great to have your insights on key advances in the heme space from ASCO. An important year this year, and we really appreciate your time and effort in sharing with us your thoughts on what we've learned this year. So thank you as always. Dr. Marc Braunstein: My pleasure. Dr. John Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find links to the abstract discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.   Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Find out more about today's guest:  Dr. Marc Braunstein  @docbraunstein    Follow ASCO on social media:   @ASCO on Twitter   ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures:  Dr. John Sweetenham:  Consulting or Advisory Role: EMA Wellness  Dr. Marc Braunstein:  Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Adaptive Biotechnologies, GlaxoSmithKline, ADC Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Abbvie, Guidepoint Global, Epizyme, Sanofi, CTI BioPharma Corp  Speakers' Bureau: Janssen Oncology  Research Funding (Institution): Janssen, Celgene/BMS   

Drs. Vamsi Velcheti and Nathan Pennell discuss novel approaches and key studies in lung cancer that were showcased at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, including the Plenary abstracts LAURA and ADRIATIC.   TRANSCRIPT Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Hello, I am Dr. Vamsi Velcheti, your guest host for the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm a professor of medicine and director of thoracic medical oncology at the Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health. Today, I'm joined by Dr. Nate Pennell, the co-director of the Cleveland Clinic Lung Cancer Program and the vice chair of clinical research at the Taussig Cancer Center in Cleveland Clinic. Dr. Pennell is also the editor-in-chief of the ASCO Educational Book. Today, we will be discussing practice-changing abstracts and the exciting advances in lung cancer that were featured at the ASCO 2024 Annual Meeting. You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of the episode. Nate, we're delighted to have you back on the podcast today. Thanks for being here. It was an exciting Annual Meeting with a lot of important updates in lung cancer. Dr. Nate Pennell: Thanks, Vamsi. I'm glad to be back. And yes, it was a huge year for lung. So I'm glad that we got a chance to discuss all of these late-breaking abstracts that we didn't get to talk about during the prelim podcast. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Let's dive in. Nate, it was wonderful to see all the exciting data, and one of the abstracts in the Plenary Session caught my attention, LBA3. In this study, the investigators did a comparative large-scale effectiveness trial of early palliative care delivered via telehealth versus in-person among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. And the study is very promising. Could you tell us a little bit more about the study and your take-home messages? Dr. Nate Pennell: Yes, I think this was a very important study. So just to put things in perspective, it's now been more than a decade since Dr. Jennifer Temel and her group at Massachusetts General Hospital did a randomized study that showed that early interventions with palliative medicine consultation in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer significantly improves quality of life and in her initial study, perhaps even overall survival. And since then, there have been numerous studies that have basically reproduced this effect, showing that getting palliative medicine involved in people with advanced cancer, multiple different cancer types, really, has benefits.  The difficulty in applying this has been that palliative care-trained specialists are few and far between, and many people simply don't have easy access to palliative medicine-trained physicians and providers. So with that in mind, Dr. Temel and her group designed a randomized study called the REACH PC trial, where 1,250 patients were randomized with advanced non-small cell lung cancer to either in-person palliative medicine visits which is sort of the standard, or one in-person assessment followed by monthly telemedicine video visits with palliative medicine. Primary endpoint was essentially to show that it was equivalent in terms of quality of life and patient satisfaction. And what was exciting about this was that it absolutely was. I mean, pretty much across the board in all the metrics that were measured, the quality-of-life, the patient satisfaction, the anxiety and depression scores, all were equivalent between doing telemedicine visits and in-person visits. And this hopefully will now extend the ability to get this kind of benefit to a much larger group of people who don't have to geographically be located near a palliative medicine program. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I think it's a great abstract, Nate and I actually was very impressed by the ASCO committee for selecting this for the Plenary. We typically don't see supportive care studies highlighted in such a way at ASCO. This really highlights the need for true interdisciplinary care for our patients. And as you said, this study will clearly address that unmet need in terms of providing access to palliative care for a lot of patients who otherwise wouldn't have access. I'm really glad to see those results. Dr. Nate Pennell: It was. And that really went along with Dr. Schuchter's theme this year of bringing care to patients incorporating supportive care. So I agree with you.  Now, moving to some of the other exciting abstracts in the Plenary Session. So we were talking about how this was a big year for lung cancer. There were actually 3 lung cancer studies in the Plenary Session at the Annual Meeting. And let's move on to the second one, LBA4, the LAURA study. This was the first phase 3 study to assess osimertinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with EGFR mutant, unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer. What are your takeaways from this study?  Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: This is certainly an exciting study, and all of us in the lung community have been kind of eagerly awaiting the results of the study. As you know, for stage III non-small cell lung cancer patients who are unresectable, the standard of care has been really established by the PACIFIC study with the consolidation durvalumab after definitive concurrent chemoradiation. The problem with that study is it doesn't really answer the question of the role of immunotherapy in patients who are never-smokers, and especially in patients who are EGFR positive tumors, where the role of immunotherapy in a metastatic setting has always been questioned. And in fact, there have been several studies as you know, in patients with EGFR mutation positive metastatic lung cancer where immunotherapy has not been that effective. In fact, in the subgroup analysis in the PACIFIC study, patients with EGFR mutation did not really benefit from adding immunotherapy.  So this is an interesting study where they looked at patients with locally advanced, unresectable stage III patients and they randomized the patients 2:1 to osimertinib versus placebo following concurrent or sequential tumor radiation. The primary endpoint for the study was progression free survival, and a total of 216 patients were enrolled and 143 patients received a study treatment, which is osimertinib, and 73 received placebo. And 80% of the patients on the placebo arm crossed over to getting treatment at the time of progression.  So most of us in the lung cancer community were kind of suspecting this would be a positive trial for PFS. But however, I think the magnitude of the difference was truly remarkable. The median PFS in the osimertinib arm was 39.1 months and placebo was 5.6 months and the hazard ratio of 0.16. So it was a pretty striking difference in terms of DFS benefit with the osimertinib consolidation following chemoradiation. So it was truly a positive study for the primary endpoint and the benefit was seen across all the subgroups and the safety was no unexpected safety signals other than a slight increase in the radiation pneumonitis rates in patients receiving osimertinib and other GI and skin tox were kind of as expected. In my opinion, it's truly practice changing and I think patients with EGFR mutation should not be getting immunotherapy consolidation post chemoradiation. Dr. Nate Pennell: I completely agree with you. I think that this really just continues the understanding of the use of osimertinib in EGFR-mutant lung cancer in earlier stages of disease. We know from the ADAURA trial, presented twice in the Plenary at the ASCO Annual Meeting, that for IB, stage II and resectable IIIA, that you prolong progression free or disease free survival. So this is a very similar, comparable situation, but at an even higher risk population or the unresectable stage III patients. I think that the most discussion about this was the fact that the osimertinib is indefinite and that it is distinct from the adjuvant setting where it's being given for three years and then stopped. But I think all of us had some pause when we saw that after three years, especially in the stage III patients from ADAURA, that there were clearly an increase in recurrences after stopping the drug, suggesting that there are patients who are not cured with a time limited treatment, or at least with 3 years of treatment.  The other thing that is sobering from the study, and was pointed out by the discussant, Dr. Lecia Sequist, is if you look at the two-year disease-free survival in the placebo arm, it was only 13%, meaning almost no one was really cured with chemo radiation alone. And that really suggests that this is not that different from a very early stage IV population where indefinite treatment really is the standard of care. I wonder whether you think that's a reasonable approach. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: I completely agree with you, Nate, and I don't think we cure a majority of our patients with stage III, and less so in patients who have EGFR-mutant, stage III locally advanced. As you just pointed out, I think very few patients actually make it that far along. And I think there's a very high rate of CNS micrometastatic disease or just systemic micrometastatic disease in this population that an effective systemic therapy of osimertinib can potentially have long term outcomes. But again, we perhaps don't cure a vast majority of them. I think that the next wave of studies should incorporate ctDNA and MRD-based assays to potentially identify those patients who could potentially go off osimertinib at some point. But, again, outside of a trial, I would not be doing that. But I think it's definitely an important question to ask to identify de-escalation strategies with osimertinib. And even immunotherapy for that matter, I think we all know that not all patients really require years and years of immunotherapy. They're still trying to figure out how to use immunotherapy in these post-surgical settings, using the MRD to de-escalate adjuvant therapies. So I think we have to have some sort of strategy here. But outside of a clinical trial, I will not be using those assays here to cite treatments, but certainly an important question to ask.  Moving on to the other exciting late-breaking abstracts, LBA5, the ADRIATIC study. This is another study which was also in the plenary session. This study was designed to address this question of consolidation immunotherapy, post chemo radiation for limited-stage small cell cancer, the treatment arms being durvalumab tremelimumab, and durvalumab observation. So what do you think about the study? This study also received a lot of applause and a lot of attention at the ASCO meeting. Dr. Nate Pennell: It was. It was remarkable to be there and actually watch this study as well as the LAURA study live, because when the disease free survival curves and in the ADRIATIC study, the overall survival curves were shown, the speakers were both interrupted by standing ovation of applause just because there was a recognition that the treatment was changing kind of before our eyes. I thought that was really neat. So in this case, I think this is truly a historic study, not necessarily because it's going to necessarily be an earth shakingly positive study. I mean, it was clearly a positive study, but more simply because of the disease in which it was done, and that is limited-stage small cell lung cancer. We really have not had a change in the way we've treated limited-stage small cell lung cancer, probably 25 years. Maybe the last significant advances in that were the advent of concurrent chemotherapy and radiation and then the use of PCI with a very modest improvement in survival. Both of those, I would say, are still relatively modest advances.  In this case, the addition of immunotherapy, which we know helps patients with small cell lung cancer - it's of course the standard of care in combination chemotherapy for extensive stage small cell lung cancer - in this case, patients who completed concurrent chemo radiation were then randomized to either placebo or durvalumab, as well as the third arm of durvalumab tremelimumab, which is not yet been recorded, and co primary endpoints were overall survival and progression free survival. And extraordinarily, there was an improvement in overall survival seen at the first analysis, with a median overall survival of 55.9 months compared to 33.4 months, hazard ratio of 0.73. So highly clinically and statistically significant, that translates at three years to a difference in overall survival of 56.5%, compared to 47.6%, or almost 10% improvement in survival at three years.  There was also a nearly identical improvement in progression-free survival, also with a hazard ratio of 0.76, suggesting that there's a modest number of patients who benefit. But it seems to be a clear improvement with the curves plateauing out. In my opinion, this is very comparable to what we saw with the PACIFIC study in stage III, unresectable non-small cell lung cancer, which immediately changed practice back when that first was reported. And I expect that this will change practice pretty much immediately for small cell as well. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I completely agree, Nate. I think it's an exciting advance in patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer. For sure, it's practice-changing, and I think the results were exciting.  So one thing that really intrigued me was in the extensive-stage setting, the benefit was very mediocre with one-to-two month overall survival benefit in both the PACIFIC and in IMpower trial. Here we are seeing almost two-year of median OS benefit. I was kind of puzzled by that, and I thought it may have to do with patients receiving radiation. And we've seen that with the PACIFIC, and makes you wonder if both the CASPIAN and the IMpower studies actually did not allow consolidation thoracic radiation. Hypothetically, if they had allowed consolidation thoracic radiation, perhaps we would have seen better outcomes. Any thoughts on that? Dr. Nate Pennell: We've been trying to prove that radiation and immunotherapy somehow go together better for a long time. Going back to the first description of the abscopal effect, and I'm not sure if I necessarily believe that to be the case, but in this setting where we truly are trying to cure people rather than merely prolong their survival, maybe this is the situation where it truly is more beneficial. I think what we're seeing is something very similar to what we're seen in PACIFIC, where in the stage IV setting, some people have long term survival with immunotherapy, but it's relatively modest. But perhaps in the curative setting, you're seeing more of an impact. Certainly, looking at these curves, we'll have to see with another couple of years to follow up. But a three-year survival of 56% is pretty extraordinary, and I look forward to seeing if this really maintains over the next couple of years follow up.  Moving beyond the Plenary, there were actually lots of really exciting presentations, even outside the Plenary section. One that I think probably got at least as much attention as the ones that we've already discussed today was actually an update of an old trial that's been presented for several prior years. And I'm curious to get your take on why you thought this was such a remarkable study. And we're talking about the LBA8503, which was the 5-year update from the CROWN study, which looked at previously untreated ALK-positive advanced non-small cell in cancer patients randomly assigned to lorlatinib, the third generation ALK inhibitor, versus crizotinib, the first generation ALK inhibitor. What was so exciting about this study, and why were people talking about it?  Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I agree, Nate. We've seen the data in the past, right? Like on the CROWN data, just first like a quick recap. This is the CROWN study, like the phase 3 study of third generation ALK inhibitor lorlatinib. So global randomized phase 3 study in patients with metastatic disease randomized to lorlatinib versus crizotinib, which is a controller. So the primary endpoint was PFS, and we've seen the results in the past of the CROWN readout quoted, with a positive study and the lorlatinib received FDA approval in the frontline setting. But the current study that was presented at the ASCO annual meeting is a kind of a postdoc analysis of five years. The endpoint for the study with central review stopped at three years, and this is actually a follow up beyond that last readout. Interestingly, in this study, when they looked at the median PFS at five years, the lorlatinib arm did not reach a median PFS even at five years and the hazard ratio is 0.19, which is kind of phenomenal in some ways. At 5 years, the majority of the patients were still on the drug. So that's quite incredible. And the benefit was more profound in patients with brain mets with a hazard ratio of 0.08. And again, speaking to the importance of brain penetrant, small molecule inhibitors, and target therapy, the safety profile, there were no additional safety signals noted in the study. We kind of know about the side effects of lorlatinib already from previous studies readouts. No unusual long-term toxicities.  I should note though, about 40% of patients did have CNS, AEs grade 1, 2 CNS toxicities on the  lorlatinib arm. And the other interesting thing that was also reported in the trial was dose reduction of lorlatinib did not have an impact on the PFS, which is interesting in my opinion. They also did some subgroup analysis, biomarker testing, biomarker populations. Patients who had P53 cooperation did much better with lorlatinib versus crizotinib. So overall, the other thing that they also had shown on the trial was the resistance mechanisms that were seen with lorlatinib were very different than what we are used to seeing with the earlier generation ALK inhibitors. The majority of the patients who develop resistance have bypass mechanisms and alterations in MAP kinase pathway PI3K/MTOR/PTEN pathway, suggesting that lorlatinib is a very potent ALK inhibitor and on target ALK mutations don't happen as frequently as we see with the earlier generation ALK inhibitors.  So I think this really begs the question, should we offer lorlatinib to all our patients with metastatic ALK-positive tumors? I think looking at the long-term data, it's quite tempting to say ‘yes', but I think at the same time we have to take into consideration patient safety tolerability. And again, the competitor arm here is crizotinib. So lorlatinib suddenly seems to be, again, cross trial comparisons, but I think the long-term outcomes here are really phenomenal. But at the same time, I think we've got to kind of think about patient because these patients are on these drugs for years, they have to live with all the toxicities. And I think the patient preferences and safety profile matters in terms of what drug we recommend to patients. Dr. Nate Pennell: I completely agree with you. I think the right answer, is that this has to be an individual discussion with patients. The results are incredibly exciting. I mean, the two-year progression free survival was 70%, and the five-year, three years later is still 60%. Only 10% of people are failing over the subsequent three years. And the line is pretty flat. And as you said, even with brain metastases, the median survival is in reach. It's really extraordinary. Moreover, while we do talk about the significant toxicities of lorlatinib, I thought it was really interesting that only 5% of people were supposedly discontinued the drug because of treatment related AEs, which meant that with dose reduction and management, it seems as though most patients were able to continue on the drug, even though they, as you mentioned, were taking it for several years.  That being said, all of us who've had experience with the second-generation drugs like alectinib and brigatinib, compared to the third-generation drug lorlatinib, can speak to the challenges of some of the unique toxicities that go along with it. I don't think this is going to be a drug for everyone, but I do think it is now worth bringing it up and discussing it with the patients most of the time now. And I do think that there will be many people for whom this is going to be a good choice, which is exciting. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Absolutely, completely agree. And I think there are newer ALK inhibitors in clinical development which have cleaner and better safety profiles. So we'll have to kind of wait and see how those pan out.  Moving on to the other exciting abstract, LBA8509, the KRYSTAL-12 study. LBA8509 is a phase 3 study looking at adagrasib versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced metastatic non-small cell cancer with KRASG12C mutation. Nate, there's been a lot of hype around this trial. You've seen the data. Do you think it's practice-changing? How does it differentiate with the other drug that's already FDA approved, sotorasib?  Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah, this is an interesting one. I think we've all been very excited in recent years about the identification of KRASG12C mutations as targetable mutations. We know that this represents about half of KRAS mutations in patients with non-small cell lung cancer, adenocarcinoma, and there are two FDA-approved drugs. Sotorasib was the first and adagrasib shortly thereafter. We already had seen the CodeBreaK 200 study, which was a phase 3 study of sotorasib versus docetaxel that did modestly prolong progression free survival compared to docetaxel, although did not seem to necessarily translate to an improvement in overall survival. And so now, coming on the heels of that study, the KRYSTAL-12 study compared adagrasib, also the KRASG12C  inhibitor versus docetaxel and those with previously treated non-small cell with KRASG12C. And it did significantly improve progression free survival with a hazard ratio of 0.58. Although when you look at the median numbers, the median PFS was only 5.5 months with the adagrasib arm compared to 3.8 months with docetaxel. So while it is a significant and potentially clinically significant difference, it is still, I would say a modest improvement.   And there were some pretty broad improvements across all the different subgroups, including those with brain metastases. It did improve response rate significantly. So 32% response rate without adagrasib, compared to only 9% with docetaxel. It's about what you would expect with chemotherapy. And very importantly, in this patient population, there was activity in the brain with an intracranial overall response rate among those who had measurable brain metastases of 40%. So certainly important and probably that would distinguish it from drugs like docetaxel, which we don't expect to have a lot of intracranial toxicity. There is certainly a pattern of side effects that go along with that adagrasib, so it does cause especially GI toxicity, like diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, transaminitis. All of these were actually, at least numerically, somewhat higher in the adagrasib arm than in docetaxel, a lot more hematologic toxicity with the docetaxel. But overall, the number of serious adverse events were actually pretty well matched between the two groups. So it wasn't really a home run in terms of favorable toxicity with that adagrasib.  So the question is: “In the absence of any data yet on overall survival, should this change practice?” And I'm not sure it's going to change practice, because I do think that based on the accelerated approval, most physicians are already offering the G12C inhibitors like sotorasib and adagrasib, probably more often than chemotherapy, I think based on perceived improvement in side effects and higher response rates, modestly longer progression-free survival, so I think most people think that represents a modest improvement over chemotherapy. And so I think that will continue. It will be very interesting, however, when the overall survival report is out, if it is not significantly better, what the FDA is going to do when they look at these drugs.  Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Thanks so much. Very well summarized. And I do agree they look more similar than dissimilar. I think CodeBreaK-200 and the KRYSTAL-12, they kind of are very identical. I should say, though I was a little surprised with the toxicity profile of adagrasib. It seemed, I mean, not significantly, but definitely seemed worse than the earlier readouts that we've seen. The GI tox especially seems much worse on this trial. I'm kind of curious why, but if I recall correctly, I think 5% of the patients had grade 3 diarrhea. A significant proportion of patients had grade 3 nausea and vomiting. And the other complicating thing here is you can't use a lot of the antiemetics because of the QT issues. So that's another problem. But I think it's more comparable to sotorasib, in my opinion.  Dr. Nate Pennell: While this is exciting, I like to think of this as the early days of EGFR, when we were using gefitinib and erlotinib. They were certainly advances, but we now have drugs that are much more effective and long lasting in these patients. And I think that the first-generation inhibitors like sotorasib and adagrasib, while they certainly benefit patients, now is just the beginning. There's a lot of research going on, and we're not going to talk about some of the other abstracts presented, but some of the next generation G12C inhibitors, for example, olomorasib, which did have also in the same session, a presentation in combination with pembrolizumab that had a very impressive response rate with potentially fewer side effects, may end up replacing the first generation drugs when they get a little bit farther along. And then moving on to another one, which I think potentially could change practice. I am curious to hear your take on it, was the LBA8505, which was the PALOMA-3 study. This was interesting in that it compared two different versions of the same drug. So amivantamab, the bispecific, EGFR and MET, which is already approved for EGFR exon 20 non-small cell lung cancer, in this case, in more typical EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer in combination with osimertinib with the intravenous amivantamab, compared to the subcutaneous formulation of amivantamab. Why would this be an important study? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: I found this study really interesting as well, Nate. And as you know, amivantamab has been FDA approved for patients with exon 20 mutation. And also, we've had, like two positive readouts in patients with classical EGFR mutations. One, the MARIPOSA study in the frontline setting and the MARIPOSA-2, in the second-line post osimertinib setting. For those studies, the intravenous amivantamab was used as a treatment arm, and the intravenous amivantamab had a lot of baggage to go along with it, like the infusion reactions and VTEs and other classic EGFR related toxicity, skin toxicities. So the idea behind developing the subcutaneous formulation of amivantamab was mainly to reduce the burden of infusion, infusion time and most importantly, the infusion related reactions associated with IV formulation.  In a smaller phase 2 study, the PALOMA study, they had looked at various dosing schemas like, subcutaneous formulation, and they found that the infusion related reactions were very, very low with the subcutaneous formulation. So that led to the design of this current study that was presented, the PALOMA-3 study. This was for patients who had classical EGFR mutations like exon 19, L858R. The patients were randomized 1:1 to subcutaneous amivantamab with lazertinib versus IV amivantamab plus lazertinib. The endpoints for the study, it's a non-inferiority study with co primary endpoints of C trough and C2 AUC, Cycle 2 AUC. They were looking at those pharmacological endpoints to kind of demonstrate comparability to the IV formulation. So in this study, they looked at these pharmacokinetic endpoints and they were essentially identical. Both subcutaneous and IV formulations were compatible. And in terms of clinical efficacy as well, the response rate was identical, no significant differences. Duration of response was also identical. The PFS also was comparable to the IV formulation. In fact, numerically, the subcutaneous arm was a little better, though not significant. But it appears like, you know, the overall clinical and pharmacological profile of the subcutaneous amivantamab was comparable. And most interestingly, the AE profile, the skin toxicity was not much different. However, the infusion reactions were substantially lower, 13% with the subcutaneous amivantamab and 66% with IV amivantamab. And also, interestingly, the VTE rates were lower with the subcutaneous version of amivantamab. There was still a substantial proportion of patients, especially those who didn't have prophylactic anticoagulation. 17% of the patients with the subcutaneous amivantamab had VTE versus 26% with IV amivantamab. With prophylaxis, which is lower in both IV and subcutaneous, but still subcutaneous formulation at a lower 7% versus 12% with the IV amivantamab.  So overall, I think this is an interesting study, and also the authors had actually presented some interesting data on administration time. I've never seen this before. Patients reported convenience using a modified score of patient convenience, essentially like patients having to spend a lot of time in the infusion site and convenience of the patient getting the treatment. And it turns out, and no surprise, that subcutaneous amivantamab was found to be more convenient for patients.  So, Nate, I want to ask you your take on this. In a lot of our busy infusion centers, the time it takes for those patients to get the infusion does matter, right? And I think in our clinic where we are kind of fully booked for the infusion, I think having the patients come in and leave in 15, 20 minutes, I think it adds a lot of value to the cancer center operation.  Dr. Nate Pennell: Oh, I completely agree. I think the efficacy results were reassuring. I think the infusion related reaction difference, I think is a huge difference. I mean, I have given a fair amount of amivantamab, and I would say the published IRR rate of 66%, 67% I would say, is maybe even underestimates how many patients get some kind of reaction from that, although it really is a first dose phenomenon. And I think that taking that down to 13% is a tremendous advance. I think fusion share time is not trivial as we get busier and busier. I know our cancer center is also very full and it becomes challenging to schedule people, and being able to do a five-minute treatment versus a five-hour treatment makes a big difference for patients.  It's interesting, there was one slide that was presented from an efficacy standpoint. I'm curious about your take on this. They showed that the overall survival was actually better in the subcu amivantamab arm, hazard ratio of 0.62. Now, this was only an exploratory endpoint. They sort of talk about perhaps some rationale for why this might be the case. But at the very least, I think we can be reassured that it's not less effective to give it and does seem to be more tolerable and so I would expect that this hopefully will be fairly widely adopted. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I agree. I think this is a welcome change. Like, I think the infusion reactions and the resources it takes to get patients through treatments. I think it's definitely a win-win for patients and also the providers.  And with that, we come to the conclusion of the podcast. Nate, thank you so much for the fantastic insights today. Our listeners will find all the abstracts discussed today in the transcripts of the episode. Thank you so much for joining us today, Dr. Pennell.  Dr. Nate Pennell: Oh, thanks for inviting me. It's always fun to talk about all these exciting advances for our patients. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Thanks to our listeners for your time today. You will find links to all the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of the episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear from ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcast.   Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Find out more about today's speakers:    Dr. Vamsi Velcheti  @VamsiVelcheti    Dr. Nathan Pennell  @n8pennell    Follow ASCO on social media:      @ASCO on Twitter    ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures:  Dr. Vamsi Velcheti:  Honoraria: ITeos Therapeutics  Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Foundation Medicine, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Novartis, Lilly, EMD Serono, GSK, Amgen, Elevation Oncology, Taiho Oncology, Merus  Research Funding (Inst.): Genentech, Trovagene, Eisai, OncoPlex Diagnostics, Alkermes, NantOmics, Genoptix, Altor BioScience, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Atreca, Heat Biologics, Leap Therapeutics, RSIP Vision, GlaxoSmithKline  Dr. Nathan Pennell:    Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Cota Healthcare, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Viosera, Xencor, Mirati Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Sanofi/Regeneron   Research Funding (Inst): Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, Loxo, Altor BioScience, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Jounce Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Heat Biologics, WindMIL, Sanofi

Dr. Shaalan Beg highlights practice-changing studies in GI cancers featured at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, including the ESOPEC trial in esophageal adenocarcinoma and durable responses to PD-1 blockade alone in mismatch repair-deficient locally advanced rectal cancer. TRANSCRIPT Geraldine Carroll: Welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Geraldine Carroll, a reporter for the ASCO Daily News. My guest today is Dr. Shaalan Beg, an adjunct associate professor at UT Southwestern Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center. Dr. Beg will be discussing practice- changing abstracts and other key advances in GI oncology that were presented at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. His full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Dr. Beg, thanks for being on the podcast today.  Dr. Shaalan Beg: Thank you for having me. Geraldine Carroll: Let's begin with LBA1, the ESOPEC trial. This was featured in the Plenary Session, and this study compared two treatment strategies for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma that could be treated with surgery. The strategies include the CROSS protocol, which consisted of chemoradiotherapy before surgery, and the FLOT protocol of chemotherapy before and after surgery. Can you tell us about this practice-changing study, Dr. Beg? Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yes. According to this study, perioperative chemotherapy with FLOT was better than neoadjuvant therapy with chemoradiation and carbo-taxol for people with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. There were 438 patients enrolled on this phase 3 study. R0 resection rates were fairly similar across both groups. The PCR rates were a little higher on the FLOT group. But when you look at the median overall survival difference, 66 months in the FLOT group versus 37 months in the CROSS group, 3-year survival was 57% versus 50% favoring FLOT therapy as well.  So a couple of caveats on this clinical trial, because the first thing to note is that the standard treatment for this disease has evolved because we now don't only give CROSS chemoradiation, we also give immunotherapy after the completion of chemoradiation for this group of patients. And in this study, since it predated that standard of care, patients did not receive immunotherapy. But having said that, the take home for me here is that chemotherapy is better than chemoradiation for this group of patients, recognizing the fact that 1) they only enrolled adenocarcinoma patients, and 2) patients with high T stage were not included. So the folks with high T stage would be those who we would expect would benefit from the radiation aspect. So my take home here is that more chemotherapy is better in the perioperative space. Radiation should be considered for individuals who need more local control. But in general, I think we're going to see us moving more towards chemotherapy-based regimens with FLOT for this group of patients. Geraldine Carroll: Great. So moving on to rectal cancer, in LBA3512, investigators reported durable, complete responses to PD-1 blockade alone in mismatch repair deficient locally advanced rectal cancer. Can you tell us more about the promising durable responses that occurred in this trial?  Dr. Shaalan Beg: On first glance, seeing that immunotherapy has good activity in patients with mismatched repair deficient rectal cancer isn't really headline breaking news anymore. We've known about this activity for this group of patients for many years. Earlier at ASCO, the investigators presented early results of this compound for people receiving six months of dostarlimab therapy for people with mismatched repair deficient, locally advanced rectal cancer, and showed that they had a very high complete response rate. At that time, it generated a lot of interest and there was a lot of curiosity on whether these outcomes will be sustained. We don't know other characteristics of their biologic status and whether this was some sort of reflection of the patients who are selected or not.   So here in this presentation at ASCO 2024, they did come back to present follow-up data for people with mismatch repair deficient colorectal cancer, having received 6 months of dostarlimab. Forty-seven patients had been enrolled, and the 41 patients who had achieved a clinical complete response continued to have disease control with no distant metastases. So that's very compelling information. There were no additional serious adverse events greater than grade 2 that they saw, and they did follow circulating tumor DNA, and those did normalize even before they had their colonoscopy to examine their tumors.  So, again, we're continuing to see very encouraging data of immunotherapy, and the response rate with dostarlimab seems to be very interesting for this disease, and it will be interesting to see how this pans out in larger studies and how this translates into the use of dostarlimab across other diseases where other checkpoint inhibitors are currently being used. Geraldine Carroll: Absolutely. So, moving on to LBA3501. The COLLISION trial looked at surgery versus thermal ablation for small cell colorectal liver metastases. This was an international, multicenter, phase 3, randomized, controlled trial. How will this study change clinical practice?  Dr. Shaalan Beg: Kudos to the investigators here. They looked to understand the difference in outcome in treating people with colorectal cancer with liver only metastases. These clinical trials are extremely difficult to design. They're very difficult to enroll on because of the multidisciplinary aspect of the interventions and patient and provider biases as well. So on this clinical trial, the investigators enrolled people with resectable colorectal cancer, liver metastases so they did not have any metastases outside the liver. Patients were required to have 10 or less known metastases that were less than 3 cm in size. There were other allowances for larger tumors as well. And after an expert panel review, patients were randomized to either resection or ablation. It was up to the physicians whether they performed these laparoscopically or openly or percutaneously, depending on the biology of the patient and the anatomical presentation.  There was a predefined stopping rule at the half-time for this clinical trial, which showed a benefit in the experimental arm of ablation compared to standard of care. The overall survival was not compromised. Progression-free survival was not compromised with local therapy. But there were differences in morbidity and mortality, as we would expect, one being a surgical procedure and the other being ablation, where, according to this study, of the 140 or so patients who received either treatment, 2.1% of people who underwent resection died within 90 days of surgery. The AE rate was 56% in the resection sample compared to 19% in ablation, and the 90-day mortality for ablation was 0.7%. So less morbidity, improved mortality, reduced adverse events with ablation versus surgical resection without compromising local control and overall survival.   And I think for practice here in the United States, this does provide very interesting data for us to take back to the clinic for lesions that are relatively small and could generally be addressed by both surgery and ablation. Historically, there are various non biologic factors that could go into deciding whether someone should have surgery or ablation, and it could be based on who the physician is, who's seeing the patient, what the practice patterns in a specific organization are, and where their expertise lie. But here we're seeing that ablation for the small lesions is a very effective tool with very good local control rates, and again, in this selected group of patients with liver only metastases. And I think it is going to make tumor board discussions very interesting with data backing ablation for these lesions. Geraldine Carroll: Well, let's move onto the MOUNTAINER study. This study created some buzz in the colorectal cancer space. That's Abstract 3509. Can you tell us about the final results of this phase 2 study of tucatinib and trastuzumab in HER2-positive metastatic CRC? What are your thoughts on this treatment option, which seems to be well tolerated? Dr. Shaalan Beg: So, HER2 overexpression or amplification occurs in about 3 to 5% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and up to 10% of people who have a RAS/RAF wild type disease. On the previous episodes of the podcast we have covered precision targeted therapy in colorectal cancer, focusing on c-MET, focusing on BRAF, and here we have updated results targeting HER2 for colorectal cancer. And the results of the MOUNTAINEER study have been out for a while. This is a phase 2 study looking at combining tucatinib which is a highly selective HER2 directed TKI with trastuzumab, the monoclonal antibody for HER2 targeting. And what they found on this study is the confirmed overall response rate was 38%. Duration of response was 12 months, overall survival was 24 months and these are the results that have been already released and now we have an additional 16 months of follow up and these results continue to hold on. PFS and overall survival gains were held, which makes it a very interesting option for people with colorectal cancer. You mentioned the tolerability aspect and side effects. I think it's important to know the spectrum of side effects for this disease may be a little different than other TKIs. There's hypertension, but there's also the risk of diarrhea, back pain and pyrexia, with the most common grade 3 treatment related adverse event was an increase in AST level seen in 10% of people of grade 3 and above.  So where does that really leave us? There is a confirmatory randomized first-line trial of tucatinib and trastuzumab in the first line setting, which is currently ongoing. So we'll stay tuned to see where that leads us. And with the HER2 space right now for colorectal cancer with the development of antibody drug conjugates, we may have more than one option for this group of patients once those trials read out. Geraldine Carroll: Excellent. Well, moving on to LBA4008, that's the CheckMate-9DW trial. This trial reported first results looking at nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sorafenib or lenvatinib as first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Can you tell us about this trial? Will there be a potential new standard of care in advanced HCC? Dr. Shaalan Beg: When we think about patients with advanced HCC, the only treatment option that they had for about a decade and a half were just oral track tyrosine kinase inhibitors that had modest to moderate clinical activity. Since then, we've seen that combination therapy is better than TKI therapy, and the combination therapy has taken two different forms. One is a combination of checkpoint inhibitor and antiangiogenic therapy, such as in the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab. The other is a combination of dual checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Here we are talking about the results of nivolumab and ipilimumab. Previously, we've talked about the combination of durva and tremi for the treatment of patients with HCC.   So in this study, nivo was given for the first 4 cycles, nivo and ipi were given together, nivo 1 mg per kg, and IPI 3 mgs per kg every 3 weeks for 4 cycles. And then the CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab was stopped. And this was followed by monotherapy nivolumab every 4 weeks until disease progression or up to 2 years. And it was compared to dealers' choice, lenvatinib or sorafenib. The median overall survival of nivo-ipi was 23 months versus 20 months with lenvatinib-sorafenib. The 24-month overall survival was 49% with ipi-nivo versus 39%. And the overall response rate with nivo-ipi was 36% compared to 13%. So again, significantly improved clinical activity.   And when we talk about immunotherapy combinations, the question that comes to mind is how well is this tolerated? There's a lot of work and iteration that took place in figuring out what the right combination strategy of ipi and nivo should be, because some of the earlier studies did demonstrate fairly high adverse events in this group of patients. So on this study, we saw that grade 3 or 4 treatment related adverse events were seen in 41% of people who received nivo-ipi and 42% if they received lenvatinib or sorafenib. So, certainly a high proportion of treatment related adverse events, but probably also reflective of the disease population, which is being tested, because those numbers were fairly similar in the control arm as well.  So we've known that nivo-ipi is active in HCC. There is an approval in the second-line space, so it remains to be seen if this data helps propel nivo-ipi to the first-line space so we end up with another combination regimen for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.  Geraldine Carroll: Excellent. Well, before we wrap up the podcast, I'd like to ask you about LBA3511. In this study, investigators looked at total neoadjuvant treatment with long course radiotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy in local advanced rectal cancer with high risk factors. So this was a multicenter, randomized, open label, phase 3 trial. What are your key takeaways here? Dr. Shaalan Beg: Key takeaway here is that total neoadjuvant therapy was better than the conventional chemoradiation followed by chemo. So this clinical trial enrolled people with T4a/b resectable disease with clinical N2 stage, and they were randomized, as you mentioned, to receiving chemoradiation with radiation capecitabine followed by surgery, and then CAPOX or capecitabine versus chemo, short-course radiation, and additional chemotherapy followed by surgery.  And when we compare both arms, the total neoadjuvant therapy led to improved disease-free survival, improved PCR rates compared to standard concurrent neoadjuvant chemo radiotherapy in this group of patients. The two arms were fairly well-balanced. The number of T4 lesions was a little higher in the chemoradiation group. There were 49% in the chemo radiation group versus 46% had clinically T4 disease, but the nodal status was fairly similar. We should keep in mind that the other baseline characteristics were fairly well balanced.  And when we look at the outcomes, the disease-free survival probability at 36 months was 76% in the total neoadjuvant group compared to 67% with chemoradiation. And the metastasis free survival in total neoadjuvant therapy was 81% versus 73%. So a fairly compelling difference between the two arms, which did translate into an overall survival of 89% versus 88% in the two groups. So definitely higher disease-free survival and metastasis free survival, no difference on the overall survival with these groups. And it talks about the importance of intensifying chemotherapy upfront in this group of patients who can have a fairly high burden of disease and may struggle with receiving chemotherapy postoperatively. Geraldine Carroll: Excellent. Well, thank you, Dr. Beg, for sharing your fantastic insights with us on these key studies from the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. It's certainly a very exciting time in GI oncology. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Absolutely. Thank you for bringing these studies out, because I think a lot of these are practice-changing and can start impacting the clinical care that we're giving our patients right now. Geraldine Carroll: Thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.   Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Find out more about today's speakers: Dr. Shaalan Beg   @ShaalanBeg     Follow ASCO on social media:   @ASCO on Twitter  ASCO on Facebook  ASCO on LinkedIn    Disclosures:  Dr. Shaalan Beg:   Consulting or Advisory Role: Ispen, Cancer Commons, Foundation Medicine, Genmab/Seagen   Speakers' Bureau: Sirtex   Research Funding (An Immediate Family Member): ImmuneSensor Therapeutics   Research Funding (Institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tolero Pharmaceuticals, Delfi Diagnostics, Merck, Merck Serono, AstraZeneca/MedImmune  

Dr. Diwakar Davar and Dr. Jason Luke discuss advances in the neoadjuvant immunotherapy space that were presented at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, including promising outcomes in high-risk melanoma from the NADINA trial, as well as other new treatment options for patients with advanced cancers.    TRANSCRIPT Dr. Diwakar Davar: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your guest host, Dr. Diwakar Davar, and I am an associate professor of medicine and the clinical director of the Melanoma Skin Cancer Program at the University of Pittsburgh's Hillman Cancer Center. I am delighted to have my colleague and friend Dr. Jason Luke on the podcast today to discuss key late-breaking abstracts and advances in immunotherapy that were presented at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. Dr. Luke is an associate professor of medicine, the associate director of clinical research, and the director of the Cancer Immunotherapeutic Center at the University of Pittsburgh Hillman Cancer Center.   You will find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode.  Jason, it's always a pleasure to hear your insights on the key trials in these spaces and to have you back as a guest on this podcast that highlights some of the work, especially advances, that were just presented. Dr. Jason Luke: Well, thanks very much for the invitation. I always love joining the podcast. Dr. Diwakar Davar: We'll start very quickly by talking about some advances and really interesting things that happened both in the context of melanoma but also in immunotherapy in general. And we'll start with what I think was certainly one highlight for me, which was LBA2, the late-breaking abstract on the NADINA trial. It was featured in the Plenary Session, and in this abstract, Dr. Christian Blank and colleagues reported on the results of this phase 3 trial of neoadjuvant ipi-nivo. This is the flipped dose of ipi1/nivo3 versus adjuvant nivolumab in PD-1 naive, macroscopic, resectable, high-risk stage 3 melanoma.  By way of background, neoadjuvant immunotherapy for those listening is an area of increasing interest for drug developers and development for both approved and novel agents. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy has been studied with multiple approved agents, including PD-1 monotherapy, PD-1 LAG-3, PD-1 CTLA-4, T-VEC, as well as investigational agents and multiple randomized and non-randomized studies. The benchmark pathologic response rates with these agents range from 17% PCR with PD-1 monotherapy, 45% to 55% PCR with PD-1 CTLA-4 combination therapy, and slightly higher 57% PCR with PD-1 LAG-3 has recently reported by Dr. Rodabe Amaria from MD Anderson. However, as we embark on phase 3 comparisons for various neoadjuvant compared to adjuvant immunotherapy trials and combinations, we're increasingly moving towards event-free survival as the primary endpoint for neoadjuvant versus adjuvant studies. And this was most recently studied in the context of SWOG S1801, a study that was led by Dr. Sapna Patel.  So, Jason, before we start on NADINA, can you briefly summarize the SWOG S1801 trial and the event-free survival statistic reported by Dr. Patel and her colleagues? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, absolutely. And these data were reported at ESMO about two years ago and then in the New England Journal last year. The S1801 study answered a very simple question: What would happen if you took three of the doses of standard adjuvant therapy with pembrolizumab and moved them prior to surgery? And on a high level, the study is as simple as that. And many of us were somewhat skeptical of this trial design because we thought that just moving the doses earlier may not actually have a major impact.  In the study, you alluded to the event-free survival statistic, and that alludes to what was considered an event. And so, without reading all of it, there were several different aspects that were included in terms of time, based on the date of randomization until the first of a series of events, such as disease progression, toxicity from treatment, if the patient was unable to go to surgery or had surgical complications, or if they had delay in starting the adjuvant therapy due to toxicity, and obviously, recurrence of melanoma or death from any cause. In that context, merely moving the 3 doses of pembrolizumab to the neoadjuvant setting saw an improvement in this two-year event free survival to 72% for the neoadjuvant therapy compared to 49% for the adjuvant therapy. That was quite an outstanding change. And again, noting the power of neoadjuvant treatment, really dictating the impact of anti PD-1, again, just with 3 doses moving from adjuvant into the neoadjuvant setting, and I think all of us were somewhat surprised to see that magnitude of a benefit. But it set up the current study very well, where we now look at combination therapy. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So let's move on to the phase 3 NADINA trial. Do you want to perhaps discuss the study design, particularly focusing on the EFS primary endpoint and maybe also touching on the different schedules? So, SWOG S1801 was a neoadjuvant study of 3 cycles of pembrolizumab and how did that compare and contrast to the neoadjuvant combination that was studied in NADINA? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, as you alluded to, NADINA investigated the regimen of nivolumab plus ipilimumab and compared that against adjuvant therapy with nivolumab alone. So, in the study, as you alluded, the dose and schedule of the two drugs used was nivolumab at 3 milligrams per kilogram, and ipilimumab with 1 milligram per kilogram. That was based on a series of signal finding and safety studies that had been previously done by the same group of authors identifying that as the optimal treatment regimen. And it's worth noting that's slightly different than the labeled indication that's generally used for those same drugs for metastatic melanoma, albeit that the NCCN also endorses this schedule. So, in the trial, 423 patients were randomized, 1:1 to receive either neoadjuvant therapy with those 2 doses of nivolumab plus ipilimumab as compared with standard adjuvant therapy with nivolumab following surgery.   Now, one interesting tweak was that there was an adaptive nature to the study, meaning that patients had a fiducial placed at the index lymph node, and after the neoadjuvant therapy in that arm, that lymph node was removed. And if the patient had a major pathological response, they did not go on to receive the adjuvant portion of the treatment. So it was adaptive because those patients who did very well to the neoadjuvant did not require the adjuvant portion. And in those patients who did not achieve a major pathological response, they could go on to have the adjuvant therapy. And that also included the BRAF therapy for those whose tumors were BRAF mutants.  It's also worth pointing out that the definition of event free survival was slightly different than in the S1801 study that was alluded to just a second ago. And here, EFS was defined from the date of randomization until progression due to melanoma or due to treatment. So that's slightly different than the definition in the S1801 trial. So, a somewhat complicated study, but I really applaud the authors because I think this study does mirror what we would likely be doing in actual clinical practice.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, just to briefly summarize the efficacy, and then to get your comments on this, the path response, the PCR rate was 47%. The major pathologic response rate, which is the proportion of patients with between 0% to 1/10% of residual viable tumors, was about 12%. And for a major pathologic response rate of 0% to 10% of 59%. And then the rest of the patients had either pathologic partial response, which was 10% to 50%, or pathologic non response or 50% or greater residual viable tumor, all assessed using central pathology grades. The one year RFS was 95% in the FDR patient population versus 76% in the pathologic partial response patient population, 57% in the pathologic non response patient population. So how do you view these results? Can you context the FDR rates and the EFS rates from NADINA relative to nivo-rela and also potentially SWOG 1801? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, I think these are very exciting results. I think that for those of us that have been following the field closely, they're actually not especially surprising because they mirror several studies that have come before them. When we put them in context with other studies, we see that these rates of major pathological response are consistent with what we've seen in phase 2 studies. They're relatively similar. Or I should say that the results from nivolumab and relatlimab, which was also pursued in a phase 2 study of somewhat similar design, are somewhat similar to this. So, combination immunotherapy does look to deliver a higher major pathological response than pembrolizumab alone, as was known in S1801. Which of course, the caveat being is these are cross control comparisons that we need to be careful about. So I think all of these are active regimens, and I think adding a second agent does appear to enhance the major pathologic response rates. When we look at the event free survival, we see something similar, which is that numerically it looks to be that combination immunotherapy delivers a higher event free survival rate. And that looks to be rather meaningful given the difference in the hazard ratios that were observed between these various studies. And here in the NADINA study, we see that 0.3 hazard ratio for EFS is just extremely impressive.  So the abstract then, from ourselves, out of these specific studies, what does this mean more broadly in the real world, where patients exist and the rest of the landscape for clinical trials? I think we can't take enough time to stop for a second and just think about what a revolution we've come forward in with immune checkpoint blockade and melanoma. When I started my career, now, more than 15 years ago, melanoma was the cancer that made cancer bad. And now here we say, in the highest risk of perioperative patients, we can deliver 2 doses of nivolumab and ipilimumab, and essentially half of the patients then don't need to go on, and more than half the patients don't need to go on to have a full surgery and don't need adjuvant therapy. And from what we could tell of a very, very low risk of every heavy recurrence of melanoma. Of course, there's the other half of patients where we still need to do better, but these are just fantastic results and I think highly meaningful for patients.   In the context of ongoing clinical trials, another abstract that was presented during the meeting was the update to the individualized neoantigen therapy, or V940 with pembrolizumab or against pembrolizumab alone. That's the KEYNOTE-942 study. In that study, they presented updated data at two and a half years for relapse free survival, noting a 75% rate without relapse. So those results are also highly intriguing. And these are in a similar population of very high risk patients. And so I think most of us believe that neoadjuvant therapy with this study in NADINA is now confirmed as the priority approach for patients who present with high-risk stage 3 disease. So that would be bulky disease picked up on a scan or palpable in a clinic. I think essentially all of us now believe patients should get preoperative immunotherapy. We can debate which approach to take, and it may vary by an individual patient's ability to tolerate toxicity, because, of course, multi agent immunotherapy does have increased toxicity relative to anti PD-1 alone. But we'll have to wait now for the full phase 3 results from the V940 individualized neoantigen therapy. And if those come forward, that will be an extremely attractive approach to think about for patients who did not achieve a major pathological response to neoadjuvant therapy, as well as of course to the other populations of patients with melanoma where we otherwise currently give adjuvant therapy stage 2B all the way through stage 4 resected. It's an amazing time to think about perioperative therapy in melanoma. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So this is clearly outstanding data, outstanding news. Congratulations to the investigators for really doing what is an investigative initiated trial conducted across multiple continents with a huge sample size. So this clearly appears to be, at this point in time at least, a de facto standard. But is this going to be FDA-approved, guideline-approved, or is it possible in your mind? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, that's an interesting question. This study was not designed with the intent to necessarily try to register this treatment regimen with the FDA. One would have to take a step back and say, with how powerful these data appear, it sort of seemed like it would be too bad if that doesn't happen. But all the same, I think the community and those of us who participate in guideline recommendations are fully supportive of this. So, I think we will see this move into compendium listings that support insurance approval, I think, very, very quickly. So, whether or not this actually becomes formally FDA approved or is in the guidelines, I think this should become the standard approach that is considered for patients, again presenting with high-risk stage 3 disease.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: Fantastic. So now we're going to go in and talk about a slightly different drug, but also from the melanoma context, and that is the safety and efficacy of RP1 with nivolumab in the context of patients with melanoma who are PD-1 failures. So, this is Abstract 9517. And in this abstract, our academic colleagues essentially talked about these data, and we'll start by describing what RP1 is. RP1 essentially is a HSV-1 based oncolytic immunotherapy. And RP1 expresses GM-CSF as well as a fusogenic protein, GALV-GP-R-. And in this abstract, Dr. Michael Wong from MD Anderson and colleagues are reporting the results of IGNYTE, which is a phase I trial of intratumoral RP1 co-administered with systemic nivolumab in patients with advanced metastatic treatment refractory cutaneous melanoma. And the data presented in this abstract represents data from a registration directed, abbreviated as RD, registration directed cohort of RP1 plus nivolumab in PD-1 refractory melanoma. So, let's start with the description of the cohort.  Dr. Jason Luke: Right. So, in this study, there were a total of 156 patients who were presented, and that included an initial safety and dose finding group of 16, as well as the RD cohort, as you noted, of 140 patients. And it's important to point out that this was a cohort that was selected for a very strict definition of progression on anti PD-1, or a combination immunotherapy as their immediately prior treatment. So, all of the patients in the cohort had exposure to anti PD-1, and 46% of them had anti PD-1 plus anti CTLA4, nivolumab and ipilimumab as their immediately prior therapy. This was also a group of relatively high-risk patients when one considers stage. So, within the stage 4 population, the entry here included 51% who had stage M1B, C, and D melanoma. And that is worth pointing out because this is an injectable therapy. So, trials like this in the past have tended to be biased towards earlier stage, unresectable or metastatic melanoma, meaning stage 3B, 3C, 3D and then stage 4m1a. Again, to emphasize the point here, these were pretreated patients who had a strict definition of anti PD-1 resistance, and over half of them, in fact, had high-risk visceral metastatic disease.  In that context, it's very interesting to observe that the overall response rate was described in the total population, as 31%, and that included 12% who achieved complete response. And so, again, to make sure it's clear, we're talking about a treatment where the oncolytic virus is injected into one or multiple sites of recurrent disease, and then the patients administer nivolumab as per standard. And so, I think these data are quite intriguing. Again, such a high- risk population and their maturity now, with a follow-up of over a year, I think, makes this look to be a very interesting treatment option.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: I guess on that topic of mature follow-up, it probably would be important for us to inform our audience that the top line data for the primary analysis was actually just released, I think, earlier today, and wherein the central confirmed objective response rate was 34% by modified RECIST and 33% by RECIST, clearly indicating that these responses, as you noted, very treatment refractory patient population, these responses were clearly very durable. So, you mentioned that there were responses seen in uninjected visceral lesions, responses seen in both PD-1 and PD-1 CTLA-4 refractory patients. Can you talk a little bit about the response rate in these high-risk subgroups, the uninjected visceral lesions, the patients who had both combination checkpoint and epidural refractory response rate by primary PD-1 resistance.  Dr. Jason Luke: Sure. You know, I think, again, to emphasize this point in the study, we saw that there were responses in the non-injected lesions, and I think it's really important to emphasize that. Some have referred to this as a putative abscopal like effect, similar to what is described in radiation. But it implies that local treatment with the oncolytic virus is triggering a systemic immune response. In the higher risk patient population, we'll note that whereas the overall response rate in PD-1 refractory patients was 34%, in the combination of PD-1 and CTLA-4 refractory patients, the response rate was 26%. So, [this is] still very good. And when we looked at that split by stage, as I alluded to before, in the population of patients that had, what you might call earlier unresectable diseases, so 3B through 4A, the response rate was 38%, and in the stage 4 M1b through M1d, it was 25%. So slightly lower, but still very good. And that would be as expected, because, of course, the patients with visceral metastatic disease have more advanced disease, but those response rates look quite good. Again, looking at the combination refractory population as well as the more high-risk disease. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, clearly, these are very promising data and exciting times for multiple investigators in the field and the company, Replimune, as well. So, what are the next steps? I believe that a registration trial is planned, essentially, looking at this with the goal of trying to get this combination registered. Can you tell us a little bit about IGNYTE-3, the trial design, the control arm, and what you foresee this trial doing over the next couple of years?  Dr. Jason Luke: So, as this agent has been maturing, it's worth pointing out that the company that makes this molecule, called RP1, but I guess now we'll have to get used to this name vusolimogene oderparepvec as the actual scientific term, they have been having ongoing discussions with the FDA, and there is the potential that this agent could come forward on an accelerated path prior to the results being released from a phase 3 trial. That being said, the phase 3 confirmatory study, which is called the IGNYTE-3 study, is in the process of being launched now. And that's a study investigating this molecule in combination with nivolumab, as was alluded to earlier, and a randomized phase 3 design, where that combination is compared with a physician's choice, essentially a chemotherapy-based option.   In that study, it will be 400 patients with stage 3B through stage 4; patients will have progressed on anti PD-1, either as a combination or in sequence, and then come on the study to be randomized to either vusolimogene oderparepvec plus nivolumab versus that physician's choice. And the physician's choice includes chemotherapy agents, but also nivolumab plus relatlimab as another option, or an anti PD-1 monotherapy, if that's deemed to be a reasonable option by the treating investigator. And the primary endpoint of that study is overall survival. And unfortunately, in this highly refractory patient population, that's something that may not take long to identify with key secondary endpoints of progression free survival, as well as overall response rate. I'm quite enthusiastic about this study, given these data, which have now been centrally confirmed as you alluded to before. I think this is a very exciting area of investigation and really crossing my fingers that this may be perhaps the first locally administered therapy which does appear to have a systemic impact that can hold up in phase 3. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Very, very, very exciting results. And I guess it's worthwhile pointing out that this company also has got, I think, multiple studies planned with both RP1 and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in a solid organ transplant patient population where single agent activity has already been reported by Dr. Migden at prior meetings, as well as a novel trial of potentially RP2 metastatic uveal melanoma. So we'll now pivot to Abstract 6014. So, 6014 is a drug by a company known as Merus. Essentially, it's a very novel agent. Merus essentially is a company that is specialized in making bicyclics and tricyclics. And these are not bicycles or tricycles, but rather drugs that essentially are bispecific antibodies. And Merus essentially has come up with petosemtamab. I think we're going to have to figure out better names for all of these drugs at some point. But petosemtamab, or MCLA-158, essentially is a bicyclic, targeting both EGFR as well as LGR-5. So EGR-5, of course, is a known oncogenic driver in multiple tumor types, squamous, including non small cell lung cancer, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, but also head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. And LGR-5 essentially is leucine-rich repeat-containing G-protein coupled receptor 5, but it's a receptor in cancer stem cells and certainly highly expressed in head neck squam. And MCLA-158, or petosemtamab is a IgG one bispecific with ADCC-activity because of IgG1 backbone co-targeting EGFR and LGR5. Merus had earlier results that evaluated petosemtamab monotherapy. They defined the RP2D and second- and third-line head and neck blastoma patients with a respectable response rate of 37% investigator-assessed ORR with six months median DoR, and this was published by Ezra Cohen about a year or so ago.  In this abstract, Dr. Fayette and colleagues report on the results of the MCLA-158-CL01 trial, which is a trial of pembrolizumab plus petosemtamab in one front line head and neck squamous cell population. So maybe let's start with the description of the cohort. And it is a small trial, but we'll be able, I think, to dig into a little bit about why this might be exciting. Dr. Jason Luke: Yes. So, as alluded to, it's not the biggest trial as yet, but there were 26 patients with anti PD-1 treatment naive head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. And all the patients in the study did receive, as you alluded to, pembrolizumab plus petosemtamab. Based on the label for pembrolizumab, all the patients in this study were PDL-1 positive. So that's one point that it's worth pointing out to make sure that that's understood. This is the population of patients who would be expected to benefit from pembrolizumab in the first place. Now, in the abstract, they reported out only 10 response evaluable patients, but they updated that in the actual slides of presentation at the meeting. So among 24 patients that were alluded to, 67% were described as having had a response, although some of those were yet to be confirmed responses. And when it was evaluated by PDL-1 status, there didn't seem to be a clear enrichment of response in the PD-1 positive more than 20% group, as compared to the 1-19% group. That isn't especially surprising because that was a trend that one would see, presumably with pembrolizumab alone. But overall, I think these data are pretty exciting in terms of a preliminary study. Dr. Diwakar Davar: You know, you mentioned that the objective response rate was high, almost 60-something%. The prognosis of these patients is generally poor. The OS is typically thought of as between 6-15 months. And based on KEYNOTE-048, which was led by Dr. Burtness and colleagues, the standard of care in the setting is pembrolizumab +/- platinum based chemotherapy regimens. Allowing for the fact that we only have 10 patients here, how do you think these results stack up against KEYNOTE-048? And you made a very important point earlier, which was, by definition, pembro is on label only for the CPS. So PDL-1 score, at least in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma CPS and not TPS. But in the CPS 1% or greater patient population, where pembro is on label, how do these results stack up against the KEYNOTE-048 results. Dr. Jason Luke: Right. KEYNOTE-048 is considered the seminal study that dictates frontline treatment in head and neck cancer. And before we dive into this too far, we do want to acknowledge that here we're comparing 26 patients versus a phase 3 trial. So, we're not trying to get too far ahead of ourselves, but this is just a preliminary comparison. But in KEYNOTE-048, as you alluded to, two regimens were superior to chemotherapy. One was the pembrolizumab monotherapy, as well as pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy. So again, the study overall survival, of course, was much higher, the PDL-1 positive subgroup, which is what dictated the unlabeled use of this. But response to pembro monotherapy in that population of patients is still modest. We're talking about upwards of 20-30%. So, if you compare that to, again, preliminary evidence here from this trial of only 24 patients, that response rate of 60% seems extremely high. And so even if that were to come down somewhat in a larger data series of patients, that still looks to be quite promising as a treatment regimen, that might eventually even be chemotherapy sparing for this population of patients. I think this raises a lot of eyebrows that perhaps this dual targeting approach, EGFR and LDR-5, may bring something really important to the field that evolves it. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, what are the next steps for petosemtamab? You mentioned that the activity was interesting. Are we going to see a larger trial? Any thoughts on where things are going to go?  Dr. Jason Luke: Well, based on the phase 2 data of petosemtamab alone, even without pembrolizumab, the molecule had already been given fast track designation by FDA, which means allowing for greater communication between the drug sponsor in the FDA and designing a seminal study design. One would assume that this trial will be rapidly expanded quite greatly, perhaps to 100 or 200 patients, to try to flush out what the real response rate is in a more meaningful number of patients. But I think these data will probably also trigger the design and probably near-term evaluation or expedited acceleration of a phase III clinical trial design that would potentially validate this against the current standard of care. So, I'm pretty excited. I think we'll see a lot more about this agent in the relatively near future. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, finally, we'll pivot to the last abstract that we're going to talk about, which is Abstract 2504. It's a relatively interesting target, CCR8 monoclonal antibody. But this is the efficacy and safety of LM-108, and LM-108 is an anti CCR8 monoclonal antibody that is being developed by LaNova Medicine. And the results that are described, actually a pool set of results of combinations of LM-108 with anti PD-1, two separate anti PD-1, in patients with gastric cancer, mostly done ex-U.S., which is interesting because of this patient population, and it's a pool result of several, 3 phase 1 and 2 studies.  LM-108 is an Fc-optimized anti CCR8 monoclonal antibody that selectively depletes tumor infiltrating Tregs. The abstract reported a pooled analysis of three phase 1, 2 trials with 3 different NCT numbers that all evaluated the efficacy of LM-108 and anti PD-1 in patients with gastric cancer. So, let's start with the description of the cohort. Maybe, Jason, you can tell us a little bit about before you start, as you describe the cohort, sort of what we know, editorially speaking, about the difficulty with which Tregs depletion has been tried and obviously failed up until now in the tumor microenvironment. Dr. Jason Luke: Right. I think that's a really interesting comment. And so, for decades, in fact, targeting regulatory T-cell to alleviate immune exclusion in the tumor microenvironment has been of interest in immuno-oncology. And in preclinical mouse models, it seems quite clear that such an approach can deliver therapeutic efficacy. However, by contrast, in human clinical trials, various different Treg depleting strategies have been attempted, and there's really little to no evidence that depleting Tregs from human tumors actually can deliver therapeutic responses. And by that we're referring to CD-25 antibodies. The drug ipilimumab, the CTLA-4 antibody, was punitively described as a Tregs depleter preclinically, but that doesn't seem to be the case in patients. And so, in that background, this is quite an eye raiser that an anti CCR8 antibody could be driving this effect. Now, before we talk about the results of this trial, I will point out, however, that given the Fc-optimization, it's entirely possible that the Tregs are being depleted by this mechanism, but that more could also be going on. Because Fc gamma RII binding by this antibody that could be nonspecific also has the potential to trigger immune responses in the tumor microenvironment, probably mediated by myeloid cells. So I think more to come on this. If this turns out to be the first meaningful Tregs depletor that leads to therapeutic efficacy, that would be very interesting. But it's also possible this drug could have multiple mechanisms.  So, having said all of that, in the clinical trial, which was a pooled analysis, like you mentioned, of LM-108 in combination with anti PD-1 of a couple different flavors, there were 48 patients treated either with LM-108, with pembrolizumab, or with toripalimab, which is another anti PD-1 antibody. On the drug combination was, generally speaking, pretty well tolerated, noting grade 3 treatment related adverse events in the range of 38%, which is somewhat expected given combination immunotherapy. We talked about nivolumab and ipilimumab before, which, of course, gives even higher rates of immune-related adverse events, with the most common toxicities being anemia, lipase elevations, rash, ALC decrease; albeit, quite manageable. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, what about the objective response rate? Can you contextualize the efficacy? And as you do that, maybe we'll think about what you'd expect in the context of, say, gastric cancer, especially in patients who've never really had a prior checkpoint inhibitor before. What do you think about the ORR? What do you think about the relative efficacy of this combination? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, so, in the study, they described overall response rate in the 36 patients as 36% and described immediate progression for survival of about 6.5 months. And so that was among patients who were treatment naive. And in second-line patients, they actually described an even higher response rate, although it was only 11 patients, but they're at 64%. And so, I think those data look to be somewhat interesting. When I was actually scrutinizing the actual data presented, it was of some interest to note that the quality of responses seemed to be about as good on the lower dose of LM-108, so 3 milligrams per kilogram as compared to 10 milligrams per kilogram. I think there's definitely more to learn here to try to optimize the dose and to fully understand what the overall efficacy of this treatment combination would be.  I would emphasize that in this disease, I think novel treatment strategies are certainly warranted. While anti PD-1 with chemotherapy has moved the needle in terms of standard of care treatment, it's really only a minor subset of patients who derive durable long-term benefit like we normally associate with immune checkpoint blockade. I think these are preliminary data. They're very intriguing.   You alluded to earlier that this population of patients was an Asian data set, and it is well known that the efficacy of chemotherapy and immunotherapy does appear to be somewhat enhanced in Asian populations, and that goes to distributions of metastasis and tumor microenvironment effects, etc. Very difficult to try to tease any of that out in this abstract, other than to look at these data and suggest that this is pretty interesting, both from a novel therapeutic approach, we talked about the Tregs consideration, but also straight up on the efficacy because I think if these data could hold up in a larger number of patients, and particularly in a western population of patients, I think it would be very intriguing. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Certainly, ASCO 2024 had a lot of interesting data, including data from targeted agents, the LAURA trial, ADCs. But just focusing on the immune therapy subset, we certainly saw a lot of great advances in patients who were treated with neoadjuvant as well as relapse refractory disease in the context of RP1 and then a couple of newer agents such as this petosemtamab as well as LM-108. And of course, we cannot forget to highlight the extended DMFS data from the pembro vaccine study from KEYNOTE-942.  Jason, as always, thank you for taking a little bit of time out of your extremely busy schedule to come and give us insights as to how these agents are impacting the landscape. We really value your input and so thank you very much.  Dr. Jason Luke: Thank you for the opportunity. Dr. Diwakar Davar: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You will find the links to all the abstracts that we discussed in the transcript of this episode. And finally, if you value the insights that you hear on this podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. So, thank you.   Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Follow today's speakers:   Dr. Diwakar Davar   @diwakardavar   Dr. Jason Luke   @jasonlukemd      Follow ASCO on social media:    @ASCO on Twitter   ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures:       Dr. Diwakar Davar:     Honoraria: Merck, Tesaro, Array BioPharma, Immunocore, Instil Bio, Vedanta Biosciences    Consulting or Advisory Role: Instil Bio, Vedanta Biosciences    Consulting or Advisory Role (Immediate family member): Shionogi    Research Funding: Merck, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CellSight Technologies, GSK, Merck, Arvus Biosciences, Arcus Biosciences    Research Funding (Inst.): Zucero Therapeutics    Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Application No.: 63/124,231 Title: COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR TREATING CANCER Applicant: University of Pittsburgh–Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education Inventors: Diwakar Davar Filing Date: December 11, 2020 Country: United States MCC Reference: 10504-059PV1 Your Reference: 05545; and Application No.: 63/208,719 Enteric Microbiotype Signatures of Immune-related Adverse Events and Response in Relation to Anti-PD-1 Immunotherapy       Dr. Jason Luke:    Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Actym Therapeutics, Mavu Pharmaceutical, Pyxis, Alphamab Oncology, Tempest Therapeutics, Kanaph Therapeutics, Onc.AI, Arch Oncology, Stipe, NeoTX    Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, EMD Serono, Novartis, 7 Hills Pharma, Janssen, Reflexion Medical, Tempest Therapeutics, Alphamab Oncology, Spring Bank, Abbvie, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Incyte, Mersana, Partner Therapeutics, Synlogic, Eisai, Werewolf, Ribon Therapeutics, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Regeneron, Rubius, Tesaro, Xilio, Xencor, Alnylam, Crown Bioscience, Flame Biosciences, Genentech, Kadmon, KSQ Therapeutics, Immunocore, Inzen, Pfizer, Silicon Therapeutics, TRex Bio, Bright Peak, Onc.AI, STipe, Codiak Biosciences, Day One Therapeutics, Endeavor, Gilead Sciences, Hotspot Therapeutics, SERVIER, STINGthera, Synthekine    Research Funding (Inst.): Merck , Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie, Macrogenics, Xencor, Array BioPharma, Agios, Astellas Pharma , EMD Serono, Immatics, Kadmon, Moderna Therapeutics, Nektar, Spring bank, Trishula, KAHR Medical, Fstar, Genmab, Ikena Oncology, Numab, Replimmune, Rubius Therapeutics, Synlogic, Takeda, Tizona Therapeutics, Inc., BioNTech AG, Scholar Rock, Next Cure    Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Serial #15/612,657 (Cancer Immunotherapy), and Serial #PCT/US18/36052 (Microbiome Biomarkers for Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Responsiveness: Diagnostic, Prognostic and Therapeutic Uses Thereof)    Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Array BioPharma, EMD Serono, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Reflexion Medical, Mersana, Pyxis, Xilio

Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 4 of the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, including exciting new data from the IMROZ trial in multiple myeloma, adjuvant therapy for triple-negative breast cancer in A-BRAVE, and the front-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma in JAVELIN Renal-101. TRANSCRIPT Dr. John Sweetenham: I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast, with my top takeaways on selected abstracts from Day 4 of the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting.   Today's selection features 3 randomized prospective trials in the first-line treatment of multiple myeloma, adjuvant therapy for triple negative breast cancer, and the frontline treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma, all of which provide important new data.   My full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. The first of today's abstracts is number 7500. This abstract, presented by Dr. Thierry Facon from the Department of Hematology at the University of Lille in France, describes the results of the IMROZ study. This was a multicenter phase 3 study comparing a current standard first-line regimen for transplant ineligible patients with myeloma VRd with the same combination plus an additional agent, isatuximab.  The combination of bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone, known as VRd, is currently a standard first-line regimen for patients with multiple myeloma, both transplant eligible and ineligible. Previous phase 3 studies have shown that the addition of an anti-CD38 antibody to triplet regimens improves outcomes in newly diagnosed patients. Based on early phase clinical trial data showing promising response rates with isatuximab, the IMROZ study was conducted to compare isatuximab VRd with VRd alone in patients who were either ineligible for transplant or had no immediate indication for transplant. IMROZ was a global study conducted in 21 countries that involved 446 patients randomly assigned 3:2 to induction therapy with Isa-VRd followed by continuous Isa-Rd or induction therapy with VRd followed by Rd alone. The rate of complete response or better was approximately 75% with Isa-VRd compared with 64% with VRd alone. Very good partial response or better was achieved in 89% of patients with Isa-VRd, compared with around 83% of those with VRd alone. With a median follow-up at 5 years, Isa-VRd followed by Isa-Rd had reduced the risk of progression or death by 40.4% compared with VRd alone. The 60-month progression-free survival rate was 63% for Isa-VRd compared with around 45% with VRd alone, and the progression-free survival benefit was maintained in most of the analyzed subgroups. Minimal residual disease negativity was also measured in this study in both the intent to treat population and those patients who achieved a complete response. For example, in the intent to treat population, the MRD negative rate was 58% with Isa-VRd compared with around 43% with VRd alone. There were also higher rates of sustained MRD negativity for 12 months or longer among patients assigned to Isa-VRd compared with VRd alone, reflecting deeper responses in the Isa-VRd arm. Although overall survival data is still immature, data from an interim analysis showed a favorable trend in the Isa-VRd arm with 22.4% risk reduction compared with VRd alone. There was little additional toxicity from the inclusion of isatuximab with the VRd regimen and the quality-of-life data were comparable and stable in both arms of the study. The investigators concluded that although overall survival data are immature, there is a trend in favor of Isa-VRd and this, combined with the favorable response, toxicity and progression-free survival data, establish isatuximab VRd as a potential new standard of care for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients not eligible for transplant. There was some discussion regarding the potential use of this regimen in patients over 80 years of age since the upper age limit was capped in IMROZ at 80 years. Although there are concerns for tolerance of the 4-drug regimen in the older patient group, it seems likely that this will be adopted, especially for those with good performance status and without major comorbidities.   Next up is LBA500. This abstract reports results of the A-BRAVE trial. This trial, presented by Dr. Pier Franco Conte from the University of Padova, Italy, was a phase 3 randomized trial to assess the efficacy of the immune checkpoint inhibitor avelumab in 2 groups of patients: those with early triple negative breast cancer, with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy; and those at high risk after primary surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. As Dr. Conte explained in the introduction to this trial, there is a fairly compelling rationale for the use of checkpoint inhibitors in triple negative breast cancer. The disease has been shown to be more immunogenic than the other breast cancer types with immune biomarkers such as TILs and PDL-1 expression associated with better prognosis, added to which, data in metastatic breast cancer show a correlation between PDL-1 expression and checkpoint inhibitor response. In the A-BRAVE study, 477 high risk patients who had completed local, regional, and systemic treatment with curative intent were stratified according to adjuvant or post neoadjuvant status and randomized 1:1 to receive avelumab at 2-week intervals for 52 weeks or to observation only. Results of the study showed a non-statistically significant improvement in three-year disease-free survival in the overall intent to treat population at 5.1% and in the post neoadjuvant patients at 6.2%. Overall survival was a secondary endpoint in this trial. The results show a significant improvement in overall survival of 8.1% in the intent-to-treat population and a very similar improvement in the post-neoadjuvant patients. The authors reported good tolerance of avelumab, although in total almost 30% discontinued treatment at some point. In their conclusion, the investigators state that the 34% reduction in the risk of death suggests a potential role for avelumab in early triple negative breast cancer patients at high risk after primary surgery or with invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Correlative studies are planned on tumor plasma and feces in this study. These are interesting and somewhat tantalizing results, suggesting a real effect from avelumab. Although confounded somewhat by the sample size, it will be important to see how these results mature with further follow-up.   Today's third selected abstract is number 4508 reporting the final analysis of the JAVELIN Renal 101 phase 3 trial in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. This study compared the combination of axitinib plus avelumab with sunitinib in this patient group. The trial included 886 patients, of whom around 61% of those in the combination group and around 65% of those in the monotherapy group were PDL-1 positive. In the initial analysis from the JAVELIN Renal 101 study, after at least 6 months of follow-up, avelumab and axitinib significantly improved progression-free survival over sunitinib in patients with PDL-1 positive tumors and in the overall population with advanced renal cell carcinoma. In the fall cohort, the median progression-free survival with the combination was 13.8 months compared with only 8.4 months with sunitinib, and based on those results, the combination received FDA approval as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in May of 2019. The progression-free survival observed in the initial analysis was confirmed with a new long-term analysis in the overall population. Median progression-free survival with avelumab and axitinib was 13.9 months compared with only 8.5 months with sunitinib and the median duration of response with the combination was 19.4 months versus 14.5 months with sunitinib. However, no difference in overall survival was seen. At 60 months, the overall survival in the combination group was 38.8% and 36.2% with sunitinib. In patients who were PDL-1 positive at 60 months, overall survival with a combination was 37.1% compared with 33.4% with sunitinib.  Despite the sustained difference in progression-free survival seen with this combination, the discussant at this session pointed out that most oncologists are unlikely to recommend a combination which has not been shown to improve overall survival when published studies have reported on 4 combinations which do positively impact overall survival in this patient group. Despite the good tolerance of this regimen, it seems unlikely to be a preferred frontline regimen in advanced renal carcinoma moving forward.  That concludes today's report. Thanks for listening and we hope you have enjoyed listening to our top takeaways from ASCO24. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.   Disclaimer:  The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Follow ASCO on social media:   @ASCO on Twitter  ASCO on Facebook  ASCO on LinkedIn    Disclosures: Dr. John Sweetenham: Consulting or Advisory Role: EMA Wellness

Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 3 of the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, including selected studies on the treatment of cancer cachexia, surgical approaches in advanced ovarian cancer, and advanced colorectal cancer with liver metastases. TRANSCRIPT Dr. John Sweetenham: I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast, with my top takeaways on selected abstracts from Day 3 of the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting.  Today's selection features studies addressing the treatment of cancer cachexia and 2 studies of surgical approaches to the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer and of advanced colorectal cancer with liver metastases.  My full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.   Cachexia affects up to 80% of patients with advanced cancer and is thought to be directly responsible for 30% of cancer deaths, according to the National Cancer Institute. Despite these statistics, the condition remains understudied and there is no standard treatment. Current guidelines recommend dietary counseling and low-dose olanzapine or short courses of corticosteroids or progesterone analogues can be used to promote weight gain. However, the guidelines mainly point to evidence gaps. No drug therapy could be strongly endorsed to improve patient outcomes and no recommendations could be made regarding exercise.  Dr. Tora Solheim from the Cancer Clinic at St. Olavs Hospital in Trondheim, Norway, today reported results from the MENAC trial in LBA12007, which tested an intervention that combined treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication ibuprofen, home-based exercise to improve endurance and muscle strength, nutritional counseling, and supplements containing omega-3 fatty acids, which, based on previous research, may enhance muscle mass in patients with cancer cachexia. This trial enrolled 212 patients with stage III or IV lung or pancreatic cancer from 17 sites in 5 countries. All patients were receiving palliative chemotherapy and either had cachexia or were at high risk of developing it. Half were randomly assigned to the intervention and half to standard care. For the exercise components of the intervention, patients were encouraged to engage in aerobic activity such as walking, swimming, or even household chores at least twice a week. They were also encouraged to perform strengthening exercises such as half squats, bicep curls, and knee lifts 3 times per week.  Over 6 weeks, the trial found average body weight stabilized in the intervention group compared with a loss of 1 kg in the standard care group, but there were no differences between the two groups and the secondary endpoints of muscle mass and daily step count as measured by ActiGraph. Dr. Solheim pointed out that 6 to 8 weeks may be too early to observe any anabolic effects on muscle mass or function, but that this timeframe was chosen, she said, because previous studies, including her team's own feasibility study had encountered high dropout rates among similar patient groups after 6 to 8 weeks.  Although these are interesting data, I think they also pose many questions: Is maintaining 1 kg of body weight a meaningful endpoint? Did the patients report any improvement in other symptoms? How was at-home exercise monitored for compliance? Did we know whether the patients were fulfilling adequate amounts of exercise? And there are many more questions. I think the investigators should be congratulated for demonstrating the feasibility of conducting a randomized trial in this challenging patient group, and this will hopefully provide a basis for future studies exploring new interventions. In LBA5505, Dr. Jean-Marc Classe presented data from the CARACO study, a randomized trial evaluating the use of retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in patients undergoing primary surgery or interval cytoreductive surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.   To provide some context, an earlier study, the phase 3 LION trial, assessed the role of RPLD in patients with advanced ovarian cancer with complete resection and normal lymph nodes after primary surgery. In this trial, RPLD provided no significant improvement in overall or progression-free survival and was associated with a significant increase in serious postoperative complications and 60-day mortality. In recent years, the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval surgery has increased significantly in the U.S. and Europe, and it was unknown whether RPLD could have a benefit among these patients. The CARACO trial was undertaken to answer this question, enrolling patients treated with either primary surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval surgery to reflect a real-world population. The multicenter trial enrolled 379 patients with FIGO stage III-IVA epithelial ovarian cancer with no suspicious retroperitoneal lymph nodes in whom optimal surgery was achievable with primary surgery or with interval cytoreductive surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy with residual tumor at less than 1 cm. Patients were randomly assigned to surgery with or without retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Patients receiving primary surgery accounted for about 26% of the no RPL arm and 21% of the RPL arm. The primary endpoint was progression free survival, and secondary endpoints included overall survival, safety, surgical outcomes, and quality of life.  Although the trial initially planned to enroll 450 patients, enrollment slowed after the presentation of the results of the Lyon trial, leading to a premature closing of this trial to enrollment with 379 patients. The median age of enrolled patients was 64 - 65 years and 87% had serous or endometrioid carcinoma. Surgery was performed with no residual tumor in around 86% of the patients in the no RPL arm and 88% of patients in the RPL arm. Importantly, the median duration of surgery was 240 minutes in those with no RPL versus 300 minutes in the RPL arm, representing an additional hour for those who underwent retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Severe morbidity within 30 days of surgery was significantly improved in the no RPL arm compared with the RPL arm as assessed by rates of transfusion or blood loss, re-intervention, and urinary injury. In an intent to treat analysis, there was no significant difference in progression-free survival in patients who did or did not receive retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. The respective median progression-free survivals were 14.8 and 18.6 months. Median overall survival was 48.9 months and 58.8 months, respectively, and on subgroup analysis, no benefit for retroperitoneal lymph node dissection was observed.   Although the results of this study are slightly confounded by the failure to reach their target accrual, the data shows strong evidence that these patients can be spared the additional surgery and subsequent surgical complications without compromising progression free or overall survival. Dr. Classe and his colleagues hope to determine whether retroperitoneal lymph node dissection is useful in patients with suspicious nodes.  The third selected abstract today is 3500, which describes a remarkable prospective study of chemotherapy plus liver transplantation versus chemotherapy alone in patients with unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases. The results of the so-called TRANSMET study were presented by Dr. Adam from Villejuif, France, on behalf of a study group including centers from France, Belgium, and Italy. In the introduction to the study, the presenter pointed out that liver resection is currently the optimal treatment for liver metastases from colorectal cancer and offers the potential for long-term survival and even cure. But resection is only possible in 10% to 20% of patients. And although cytoreductive chemotherapy may convert some patients to a resectable status, this is relatively rare. The current standard of care is the use of chemotherapy, which may prolong survival but is not curative. Liver transplantation has been used in this context since the 2000s with apparent improvements in outcome, but TRANSMET is the first randomized trial to assess the benefit of adding liver transplantation to chemotherapy in this patient group.  The TRANSMET study evenly randomized 94 patients to either undergo chemotherapy and liver transplantation or only chemotherapy. The patients were highly selective in terms of age, performance status, resection of primary tumor, months of tumor control, previous line of therapy, and tumor markers. It's noteworthy that of the 157 patients eventually considered, 63 failed to meet the demanding eligibility criteria on the review of the trial committee. The 5-year overall survival rate in the intent to treat analysis was 57% in the chemotherapy plus liver transplant cohort and 13% in the chemotherapy-alone arm. Progression-free survival was 17.4 versus 6.4 months, respectively. 28 of the 38 transplanted patients suffered relapses, 15 of which were in the lungs. Surgical resection and/or radio ablation were used in many of these patients. The authors concluded that liver transplantation is an option which should be considered in this highly selective patient group and that the outcomes reported here are comparable to outcomes for liver transplantation and other conditions. Understandably, this is a small study in a highly selective group, and it's difficult to know where this will gain traction. With a shortage of organs for donation, prioritization of this small patient group may be challenging.   That concludes today's report. Join me again tomorrow to hear more top takeaways from ASCO24. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.   Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Follow ASCO on social media:  @ASCO on Twitter  ASCO on Facebook  ASCO on LinkedIn    Disclosures: Dr. John Sweetenham: Consulting or Advisory Role: EMA Wellness

Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 2 of the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, including potentially practice-changing results in advanced Hodgkin lymphoma, intriguing data on the effect of metformin on active surveillance for prostate cancer, and the potential of AI to improve patient outreach and adherence to medical appointments. TRANSCRIPT  Dr. John Sweetenham: I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast, with my top takeaways on selected abstracts from Day 2 of the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting.   Today's selection features potentially practice-changing results for patients with advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma, results from a large trial testing the effects of metformin in patients on active surveillance for their prostate cancer, and early results giving insights into the benefits that artificial intelligence may bring to address disparities in cancer care.    My full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.   The first of today's abstracts is LBA7000, which reports the results from a large international randomized trial in patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma, presented by Dr. Peter Borchmann from the German Hodgkin Study Group. Since Hodgkin lymphoma typically affects adults in their 20s and 30s, the focus of clinical trials in recent years has been on achieving high rates of disease control while at the same time reducing the potential for short-term and long-term toxicities associated with classical chemotherapy and radiation therapy regimens. Particular emphasis has been given to reducing risk for secondary malignancy and impaired reproductive function in long-term survivors.   Building on the back of previous studies from this group, the escalated BEACOPP regimen was modified to reduce the overall duration of treatment and the potential for toxicity by incorporating novel agents, including brentuximab vedotin. This novel regimen, known as BrECADD, was compared with escalated BEACOPP in a randomized trial, HD21. Patients received 4 or 6 cycles of therapy based on the response of their disease to the first 2 cycles assessed by interim PET scan. 1,482 patients were randomized, 740 to escalated BEACOPP and 742 to BrECADD, with median follow-up at 48 months. The 4-year progression-free survival was 94.3% with BrECADD, compared with 90.9% for escalated BEACOPP, with a hazard ratio of 0.66. These results are particularly noteworthy since 64% of patients on the BrECADD arm had a negative PET scan after 2 cycles of therapy and therefore received a total of just 4 cycles, reducing their risk of toxicity.    On that note, lower rates of treatment related toxicity were observed with BrECADD. Specifically, hematologic toxicity and peripheral sensory neuropathy were less frequently seen. Female reproductive toxicity was lower with BrECADD, with more than 95% of women having normal FSH levels after 1 year on BrECADD, compared with 73% on escalated BEACOPP. Dr. Borchmann also noted that recovery of male reproductive function was improved with BrECADD, although details were not provided. These are impressive data, although no overall survival difference was observed. This is not surprising in view of the effective salvage therapies available to patients whose disease relapses after first-line therapy.   The authors conclude that these results are unprecedented for the first-line treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma and that the BrECADD regimen should be considered as a new standard of care option. Although these results are likely to change practice in some parts of the world, particularly in Europe, it's less clear whether they will impact current treatments in the United States, where modifications to the ABVD regimen, including the addition of brentuximab vedotin and more recently nivolumab, have been the subject of recent randomized trials. That said, these data add to the increasing evidence that cure of advanced Hodgkin lymphoma is possible in most patients, and that concerns over short- and long-term toxicities of therapy for this young group of patients are being addressed using several strategies.    The next abstract, LBA5002 reports the results of a Canadian study investigating the use of metformin to slow or prevent progression in patients with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance. Professor Anthony Joshua pointed out in his presentation that there are extensive epidemiologic, biologic, and clinical data suggesting that metformin may affect the progression of low-risk prostate cancer, but this has not previously been evaluated in the context of a randomized controlled trial. The MAST study – or Metformin Active Surveillance Trial – was designed to prospectively evaluate the use of metformin in patients with low-risk prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance. Patients were eligible for the trial if they had been diagnosed within the previous 12 months, had low-risk prostate cancer, defined as a Gleason score of less than 6 in less than one-third of cores involved and less than 50% of any 1 core plus having a PSA of less than 10. These patients were randomized to either active surveillance plus placebo or active surveillance plus metformin at an initial dose of 850 milligrams daily for 1 month, followed by 850 milligrams twice daily for 35 months. Evaluations including prostate biopsies were performed at baseline, then at 18 and 36 months. 405 patients were randomized 1:1 and were well matched for patient characteristics and risk factors. Pathologic and therapeutic progression were the major endpoints of the study.   The overall results of the study showed that the use of metformin in this population had no effect on pathologic or treatment progression. Although not a planned analysis, there was a signal that the use of metformin may accelerate progression in certain patients, including those with a high BMI. This study shows definitively that metformin should not be used in low-risk, localized prostate cancer patients who are eligible for active surveillance. There are many unanswered questions about its use in other situations in prostate cancer and in low-risk patients who also have diabetes.   The final selection for today is Abstract 100. In this presentation, Dr. Alyson Moadel from Montefiore Einstein Comprehensive Cancer Centre in New York City described an artificial intelligence platform which showed potential to improve patient outreach and adherence to medical appointments. In underserved communities of color, barriers to colorectal cancer screening can contribute to disparities due to late-stage diagnosis and poor outcomes. Despite active outreach by skilled patient navigators at this center, which serves an ethnically minoritized and disadvantaged population, 59% of patients either canceled or did not show for their colonoscopy appointments in 2022. While patient navigator reengagement efforts led to 21% eventually completing colonoscopy, 1,500 patients did not undergo potentially lifesaving colon cancer screening that year. The study used MyEleanor, a virtual patient navigator that engages in personalized AI conversation, to target 2,400 patients who had not attended their colonoscopy appointment in 2022 to 2023. MyEleanor called patients to discuss rescheduling, assessed barriers to uptake, offered live transfers to clinical staff to reschedule, and provided procedure preparation reminder calls.   During the study, 57% of patients engaged with MyEleanor, with 58% of this group or 33% overall accepting the live transfer. The rate of completed colonoscopies for patients who did not show for their initial appointment nearly doubled from 10% to 19% after the initiation of MyEleanor. Overall patient volume increased by 36%. Nearly one-third of the patients reported at least 2 barriers to screening. Top barriers included lack of perceived need, time, medical mistrust, concerns about findings, and cost. The investigators plan to extend these studies to explore the impact of this tool on patient preparation adherence, staff burden, and revenue. As data emerge on the potential applications of AI in the cancer care ecosystem, it's exciting to see how tools such as this have the potential to improve rates of prevention and early detection and address cancer care disparities.   Join me again tomorrow to hear more top takeaways from ASCO24. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.   Disclaimer:  The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.    Follow ASCO on social media:    @ASCO on Twitter   ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures:  Dr. John Sweetenham:  Consulting or Advisory Role: EMA Wellness